Return of O'Neill - divided opinion

[john e]

Actually, I would say that trying to see into the future is exactly what a manager should be doing when making a prospective signing. There was no guarantee that McGrath or Platt would turn into what they eventually did when Taylor signed them. It's all very well saying that Harewood was signed to bring in five or so goals off the bench, but if so, why spend a fraction of that in doing so? Henri Camara, Marcus Bent, Lomana Lua-Lua. Equally mediocre but not sitting on a big contract bleeding the club dry of wages you might need later on.

More to the point though, as the Santa Cruz example shows - if you're not so completely myopic in your transfer policy you might just find a better option than your current two meaning you don't have to run them into the ground.

As for your last sentence, I would say that that's precisely the problem. Maybe if O'Neill had aimed for a few more Laursen/Santa Cruz style signings and fewer Harewood style signings things may have turned out differently.

I did mention in reply to Paulie that the fact he never played players more was a major pisstake by O'Neill. Even Harewood would probably have bagged more for us with more appearances. And I think I would have preferred keeping him rather then getting in Heskey.

But when I was mentioning Laursen, I was thinking more that Santa Cruz could easily have been injured for most of the season as he was his second season for Blackburn. He did have previous for missing most of a season with injuries at Bayern. For a season and a half, Laursen turned out to be one of the signings of the decade for us, but he could easily have been another Ivo Stas, only with proof of existence.

Actually, I would say that trying to see into the future is exactly what a manager should be doing when making a prospective signing. There was no guarantee that McGrath or Platt would turn into what they eventually did when Taylor signed them. It's all very well saying that Harewood was signed to bring in five or so goals off the bench, but if so, why spend a fraction of that in doing so? Henri Camara, Marcus Bent, Lomana Lua-Lua. Equally mediocre but not sitting on a big contract bleeding the club dry of wages you might need later on.

More to the point though, as the Santa Cruz example shows - if you're not so completely myopic in your transfer policy you might just find a better option than your current two meaning you don't have to run them into the ground.

As for your last sentence, I would say that that's precisely the problem. Maybe if O'Neill had aimed for a few more Laursen/Santa Cruz style signings and fewer Harewood style signings things may have turned out differently.

I did mention in reply to Paulie that the fact he never played players more was a major pisstake by O'Neill. Even Harewood would probably have bagged more for us with more appearances. And I think I would have preferred keeping him rather then getting in Heskey.

But when I was mentioning Laursen, I was thinking more that Santa Cruz could easily have been injured for most of the season as he was his second season for Blackburn. He did have previous for missing most of a season with injuries at Bayern. For a season and a half, Laursen turned out to be one of the signings of the decade for us, but he could easily have been another Ivo Stas, only with proof of existence.

remember that time Harewood came on against Newcastle and played like Drogba

[Dave Clark Five]

The best Villa manager that I have known.

Beautiful.

Actually I want to change that to the best Villa manager that I have known.

Is this a quiz question to spot the difference?

[damon loves JT]

Well, he was definitely white.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Well, he was definitely white.

Non-black actually.

[Hookeysmith]

You just knew that when he arrived Heskey would be there at somepoint

And to be honest if they were not retired he would have brought in Savage and the likes of that brute Elliot from leicester as well

Its no coincidence that after leaving both leicester and Celtic both clubs were left with a lot of dead wood on high wages and went backwards at an alarming rate

Pity the media, just like in Rednapps case, never seem to mention that at all

[villanic]

Well, he was definitely white.

Non-black actually.

His hair had a bit of an Afro look to it when he was a player. So on Handsworth Wood Villa's Black/White scale I don’t think he would fall under the category of all white. 

[ktvillan]

But of all these players named now, only Harewood was really viewed as a questionable signing in the main and at the time £4m wasn't a stupid fee.

Disagree.  There were plenty of mutterings of underwhelm when he signed Knight, Heskey, Collins and Shorey, the latter partly offset by "at least he's a proper full back".   Also when Routledge was his only signing during a January window.

[TimTheVillain]

It's not divided for me, he's a scheming little man who lives by his own agenda.

He left us totally in the lurch, we haven't recovered.

Yes, we went to Wembley twice, but he spent a fortune on getting us there too.

I hope we paste Sunderland.

[littlevillain]

But of all these players named now, only Harewood was really viewed as a questionable signing in the main and at the time £4m wasn't a stupid fee.

Disagree.  There were plenty of mutterings of underwhelm when he signed Knight, Heskey, Collins and Shorey, the latter partly offset by "at least he's a proper full back".   Also when Routledge was his only signing during a January window. 

Routledge has had a good season, I imagine thats exactly how mon had envisioned him getting down the line and whipping in crosses.  Never really gave him a run /chance.

[pauliewalnuts]

Routledge has had a good season, I imagine thats exactly how mon had envisioned him getting down the line and whipping in crosses.  Never really gave him a run /chance.

Not that good a season, he's only started half their games.

Don't forget, he also proved at other clubs his inability to do much of note in the top flight.

[Handsworth Wood Villa]

The best Villa manager that I have known.

Beautiful.

Actually I want to change that to the best Villa manager that I have known.

Is this a quiz question to spot the difference?

No.

But for many younger Villans when we had MON it was the first time we actually were a good team.

We actually went to places such as Old Trafford, Anfield and the Emirates and won.

I remember when we were in 3rd place, that is unheard of stuff tbh.

Under Graham Taylor, DOL, Houllier, and McLeish I remember us being a crap lower mid-table side.

[Lambert and Payne]

Under John Gregory we reached an FA Cup final and were top the league at one point if i remember correctly?

[Dave]

Under John Gregory we reached an FA Cup final and were top the league at one point if i remember correctly?

True, but anyone under the age of say, 18 (of which there are a fair few) isn't really going to remember it.

[N'ZMAV]

Under John Gregory we reached an FA Cup final and were top the league at one point if i remember correctly?

True, but anyone under the age of say, 18 (of which there are a fair few) isn't really going to remember it.

My missus (is 25) and had a ST during the last MON year and Houllier season, she doesn't even know who Paul McGrath is. It's tiring to educate these 'Johnny-come-latelys'....

[Des Little]

He was great for us, yes but ultimately he dropped us in the shit and that's unforgivable.  Most importantly, however, he manages one of 6 teams that we absolutely have to get a result against so if it creates a good atmosphere then give him all the shit you want.