Wes Hoolohan

Kev_2012

Hey guys,

Obviously Wes Hoolohan had a huge impact on Sunday and people have been raving about him and he got MOTM, but, am I the only person seeing his downfalls?

Dunphy is out now criticizing Martin O neill for not praising him enough but how many times did he lose the ball at the weekend?

Not taking away from his delightful assist and other great aspects of play, but multiple times he did really well and then tries to do too much on his own or he has a fit when straight through on goal with the keeper to beat.

Please tell me I'm not the only one seeing this! :eek::P

Dirty Dingus McGee

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Hey guys,

Obviously Wes Hoolohan had a huge impact on Sunday and people have been raving about him and he got MOTM, but, am I the only person seeing his downfalls?

Dunphy is out now criticizing Martin O neill for not praising him enough but how many times did he lose the ball at the weekend?

Not taking away from his delightful assist and other great aspects of play, but multiple times he did really well and then tries to do too much on his own or he has a fit when straight through on goal with the keeper to beat.

Please tell me I'm not the only one seeing this! :eek::P

No.

He gave away the ball in the second half and you could see Martin O'Neill going ballistic on the sideline about it.

He's a tidy player but he's nowhere near good enough to be guaranteed a start every single time for Ireland and he is getting a fair bit of game time and not being completely ostracized the way some people go on.

He's perfect for games like Sundays where we can dominate the opposition on he has no defensive responsibility but he could be a potential liability in games against better opposition so we are good enough o take liberties with any half decent opposition so every player has to be a hard worker and he's not as good at that as other players are.

GLaDOS

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

He's perfect for games like Sundays where we can dominate the opposition on he has no defensive responsibility but he could be a potential liability in games against better opposition so we are good enough o take liberties with any half decent opposition so every player has to be a hard worker and he's not as good at that as other players are.

He was one of our best players when we beat Germany (MOTM possibly?) so I don't buy that he can't play against better teams. His composure on the ball is key when we're under the cosh because he has the ability to hold on to it and try and build something instead of hoofing it straight back to their defence.

He has bad games for sure and I agree he's shouldn't be a guaranteed starter (esp at 35), but the reality is we've a complete dearth of composure and ability on the ball in the middle of the park and he's the only one who provides this.

Osmosis Jones

He wasn't near his best at the weekend but I'd still rather see a player lose the ball now and then when trying something to get it forward than a player passing it safe every time and hitting percentage long balls.

McGrath5

Hoolahan was one of our best players versus Germany last year, also he gave a good account of himself at the Euro's.

To only play him against so called lesser opposition would be a complete waste of one of our best players.

Dirty Dingus McGee

GLaDOS wrote: »

He was one of our best players when we beat Germany (MOTM possibly?) so I don't buy that he can't play against better teams. His composure on the ball is key when we're under the cosh because he has the ability to hold on to it and try and build something instead of hoofing it straight back to their defence.

He has bad games for sure and I agree he's shouldn't be a guaranteed starter (esp at 35), but the reality is we've a complete dearth of composure and ability on the ball in the middle of the park and he's the only one who provides this.

As you see he's 34 now so in the past he had much more of a claim to start but I don't think he has as strong a claim anymore.

Midfield 3 of McCarthy,Arter and Hendrick would be excellent for us with Hoolahan to come on for the last 25 minutes or so.

Debil

He tried a ridiculous back heel the other night which I imagine made MON furious. He is our best technical player, but he'll also be 36 by the time the WC rolls around. Nothing shocking about mangers choosing players they'll have come tournament time. If he had more caps, there's a possibility he would have retired after the euros.

TheCitizen

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Hey guys,

Obviously Wes Hoolohan had a huge impact on Sunday and people have been raving about him and he got MOTM, but, am I the only person seeing his downfalls?

Dunphy is out now criticizing Martin O neill for not praising him enough but how many times did he lose the ball at the weekend?

Not taking away from his delightful assist and other great aspects of play, but multiple times he did really well and then tries to do too much on his own or he has a fit when straight through on goal with the keeper to beat.

Please tell me I'm not the only one seeing this! :eek::P

He's a good player and should play most of the time against strong opposition as well as weaker ones. He's not an automatic first pick all the time though, it appears you get more out of him when he's kept fresh.

Dunphy and more recently Sadlier are using him to get attention for themselves as a way to have a cut at the manager even when we're winning games. Most sensible people including MON himself see him as a very useful player but not someone who starts every game.

GLaDOS

I think part of the reason people get frustrated with the perceived misuse of Wes is it's symptomatic of the problems in Irish football as a whole. Players aren't encouraged to get the ball down and pass it. Taking risks is a big no-no. Strong or quick players selected over smaller technical players. We end up with a team of players who give it their all and get stuck in but are ultimately unable to control a game.

Arghus

Hoolahan is our best player on the ball - I think you've got to be giving him a run out in every game. Ideally he'd be a starter but he is 34 and is so slight that I could understand how he could sometimes - sometimes - make way against more physical and organised opposition. I'd still never feel sorry to see his name on the team sheet. I love the man.

Admittedly, he didn't have an absolutely flawless game against Moldova, he was guilty of giving the ball away at times and was easily muscled out of it on a few occasions, but I don't really understand some of the slight backlash that's begun since after that game. 90% of the time he was on the ball he was looking to make things happen, he set up a goal with a perfectly weighted ball, that I doubt anyone else on the team could have provided, and was involved heavily in positive play with Seamus Coleman down the right hand side as the second half wore on, that helped us get the win. I think him receiving MOTM was contentious, but not wholly unjustified. I also think that the Moldovian game was a bit of an anomaly: in most games Wes won't be required to get on the ball quite as much. Against tougher teams, who we'll probably be looking to hit on the break, Wes has a composure with the ball and the ability to find someone with a pass that could make the difference. I think that suits his style of play better than constantly having to be the brains of the operation.

I think we've got to treasure Hoolahan, because we don't have another player like him. The Irish team has many characteristics - toughness, grit, organisation - but, more than anything else, we are defined by our lack composure on the ball. The team goes through phases in matches, sometimes entire halves, where panicked hoofing is the order of the day, and we all feel like watching it is akin to being slowly boiled alive - and Hoolahan brings something different to the equation, something that we often sorely lack, and he tends to deliver. Long live Wes . I know he's an integral member of the squad now, but it's hard not to feel a bit of bitterness that he was so far from being trusted under Trapp and spent the best years of his career being misused and ignored, when he should have been playing consistently for his country.

Liam O

If he was used properly he could have been an all time great. Now I'd say his international career will go down as a missed opportunity. Great moments over the last while and hopefully one or two mpre in future but we can't be relying on 34 year olds to carry us imo. For better or worse.

Banjaxed82

The bottom line with Hoolahan is that his good points outweigh his bad points, as the other night showed.

And why should Wes be the only one to suffer the good points/bad points treatment?

McCarthy and Long's bad points would outweigh their good points (at the moment) but they waltz into the team.

I agree Wes probably isn't going to last 90 minutes against the top nations, but there is just no justification to leave him out against the likes of Georgia. And then not even to come on as a sub just baffled even more.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

The bottom line with Hoolahan is that his good points outweigh his bad points, as the other night showed.

And why should Wes be the only one to suffer the good points/bad points treatment?

McCarthy and Long's bad points would outweigh their good points (at the moment) but they waltz into the team.

I agree Wes probably isn't going to last 90 minutes against the top nations, but there is just no justification to leave him out against the likes of Georgia. And then not even to come on as a sub just baffled even more.

Managers are entitled to have preferences for certain players and Hoolahan although good is not so good that O'Neill should be getting the amount of criticism for not starting him in every game that he does get.

O'Neill is a fairly pragmatic manager and would prefer to take the safe option than the riskier one and in fairness it's worked quiet well so far.

Pro. F

A lot of people make international football out to be far more complicated than it is. Pick your best players in a system that works. That is the most important thing.

Wes is one of our best players (probably the best). He works in this team and is flexible in terms of position. So play him any game you can. Sure, he might need to be rotated because of his age. So rest him for the easier games when you have a quick turn around. Job done.

Don't - as O'Neill has said he does - do the utterly stupid thing of benching him when you have a difficult away game. And don't worry about his age. Play him for as long as he's still good enough and then pick a different player when he isn't good enough any more. If that point is reached at some time before the next World Cup, so what? There is absolutely no need to miss out on having Wes starting now just because he might not be able to play at some point in the next few years. Starting a different player to replace him when the time comes will just not be that difficult. So don't worry about it.

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Managers are entitled to have preferences for certain players and Hoolahan although good is not so good that O'Neill should be getting the amount of criticism for not starting him in every game that he does get.

O'Neill is a fairly pragmatic manager and would prefer to take the safe option than the riskier one and in fairness it's worked quiet well so far.

Picking Walters, or whoever, over Hoolahan is not safer.

O'Neil is a manager who trusts athletic ability ahead of technical. That is a distinct style, but it is not in any way pragmatic.

Mr.Nice Guy

His performance against Moldova was way overrated. He gave away the ball a lot and made some poor decisions. The pundits seemed to have the story of the match planned out in advance judging by the way they eulogized him.

He's the best creative central midfielder we have. I was pleased he played against Moldova and hope he features against Austria. But he is not the second coming of Xavi. I mean look at these recent comments from Dunphy:

"We have a player that would probably get into the England team. I saw England play and I saw France play Bulgaria and there are very few players, if any, better than Wes Hoolahan.

This is deluded.

Banjaxed82

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

His performance against Moldova was way overrated. He gave away the ball a lot and made some poor decisions. The pundits seemed to have the story of the match planned out in advance judging by the way they eulogized him.

He's the best creative central midfielder we have. I was pleased he played against Moldova and hope he features against Austria. But he is not the second coming of Xavi. I mean look at these recent comments from Dunphy:



This is deluded.

Forget about Dunphy. What fan says he's the next coming of Xavi??

Your sensationalism is as bad as Eamon's.

alchemist33

Pah, he's no Andy Reid.

Mr.Nice Guy

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Forget about Dunphy. What fan says he's the next coming of Xavi??

Your sensationalism is as bad as Eamon's.

Read my post again. You seemed to miss the point.

Banjaxed82

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Read my post again. You seemed to miss the point.

You're the one making the comparison to Xavi.

Mr.Nice Guy

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

You're the one making the comparison to Xavi.

Very much the opposite. I was criticizing Dunphy getting carried away by comparing him to top tier players. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

Liam O

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

You're the one making the comparison to Xavi.

He really wasn't. Did you listen to the praise that was put on him the other day? Got credit for both the first 2 goals over the person who scored and assisted. Constantly talked about. It was like nobody had ever seen a player like him before and he was reinventing the wheel.

I like Wes. I think he's a very good player but he is 34 and won't get better physically. Play him if he's fit for 60 odd minutes or 1 out of the 2 games in a week? Yes. Build around him when he most likely wont be there after this campaign? No.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Pro. F wrote: »

Picking Walters, or whoever, over Hoolahan is not safer.

O'Neil is a manager who trusts athletic ability ahead of technical. That is a distinct style, but it is not in any way pragmatic.

And yet he played Lubo Marovcik quite a lot when he was Celtic manager who was a Hoolahan type player only a bit better.

Maybe O'Neill doesn't trust him, Hoolahan is not the first player of his type to not be trusted by a manager and he won't be the last and Jonathan Walters has been one of Ireland's best players this decade so he's one of the last people who should be excluded for Hoolahan.

O'Neill's style has worked very well so far so I'd say it is been quite pragmatic what O'Neill is doing and it isn't as if Hoolahan hasn't played under O'Neill he's played 28 games in the last 3 years since O'Neill has been manager.

Andersonisgod

He's the most technically gifted player we've produced in who knows how many years. He loses the ball no less than any other player, the only difference is that when he loses it he is actually trying to do something progressive rather than just hoofing it away without rhyme or reason. He should be an automatic starter every game.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Andersonisgod wrote: »

He's the most technically gifted player we've produced in who knows how many years. He loses the ball no less than any other player, the only difference is that when he loses it he is actually trying to do something progressive rather than just hoofing it away without rhyme or reason. He should be an automatic starter every game.

He's no more technically gifted than Robbie Keane or Damien Duff who are roughly the same age as him.

nice_guy80

The less he plays, the better Wes gets in most people's eyes

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

And yet he played Lubo Marovcik quite a lot when he was Celtic manager who was a Hoolahan type player only a bit better.

One player, from 16 years ago. Yeah, I'm not convinced. Watch his team selections with Ireland; look at his management of Villa and Sunderland; watch his teams play and listen to what he says in his interviews and it's clear that he places a higher priority on physicality than skill.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Maybe O'Neill doesn't trust him, Hoolahan is not the first player of his type to not be trusted by a manager and he won't be the last and Jonathan Walters has been one of Ireland's best players this decade so he's one of the last people who should be excluded for Hoolahan.

Maybe O'Neill doesn't trust Hoolahan. Since Hoolahan is one of our best players and makes our team play better, not trusting him would be a mistake.

I do not agree that Walters has been one of Ireland's best players this decade, but you are focusing on the wrong thing. I even said "or whoever" with regards to who would be left out for Wes. The important point is that picking Wes over any of the other options is not any less safe. It is not unsafe to pick a player as good as Wes.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

O'Neill's style has worked very well so far so I'd say it is been quite pragmatic what O'Neill is doing and it isn't as if Hoolahan hasn't played under O'Neill he's played 28 games in the last 3 years since O'Neill has been manager.

His style has worked okay, "very well" is an exaggeration. But once again you are missing the point. You said that he is a pragmatic manager, but O'Neill's style is no more pragmatic than any other popular style of football. In fact, since it is far less effective than some other styles and isn't particularly suited to the players we have available, it would be more accurate to say that O'Neill is not a pragmatic manager. You are just making the flawed assumption that a style of football favouring physicallity must be pragmatic.

O'Neill has left Hoolahan out of difficult games because he is small. O'Neill has said this himself when interviewed. That is the thing I take issue with.

Pro. F

nice_guy80 wrote: »

The less he plays, the better Wes gets in most people's eyes

That is bollocks. Hoolahan has been frequently excellent when on the pitch for Ireland. The praise he gets comes from those performances.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Pro. F wrote: »

One player, from 16 years ago. Yeah, I'm not convinced. Watch his team selections with Ireland; look at his management of Villa and Sunderland; watch his teams play and listen to what he says in his interviews and it's clear that he places a higher priority on physicality than skill.



Maybe O'Neill doesn't trust Hoolahan. Since Hoolahan is one of our best players and makes our team play better, not trusting him would be a mistake.

I do not agree that Walters has been one of Ireland's best players this decade, but you are focusing on the wrong thing. I even said "or whoever" with regards to who would be left out for Wes. The important point is that picking Wes over any of the other options is not any less safe. It is not unsafe to pick a player as good as Wes.



His style has worked okay, "very well" is an exaggeration. But once again you are missing the point. You said that he is a pragmatic manager, but O'Neill's style is no more pragmatic than any other popular style of football. In fact, since it is far less effective than some other styles and isn't particularly suited to the players we have available, it would be more accurate to say that O'Neill is not a pragmatic manager. You are just making the flawed assumption that a style of football favouring physicallity must be pragmatic.

O'Neill has left Hoolahan out of difficult games because he is small. O'Neill has said this himself when interviewed. That is the thing I take issue with.

No I am making the assumption that O'Neill is pragmatic because that is what all successful managers are and seeing as the results have been good so far under O'Neill and O'Neill has had a very successful managerial career so far I'd say it is safe to say he is being pragmatic with his team selections.

Hoolahan is being over rated, he's good player but I wouldn't have him starting in the team ahead of Arter,McCarthy/Whelan and Hendrick in a 3 man midfield for the game against Austria.

Should the thread not be called 'Wes f*cking Hooohan' going by the current forum guidelines?

Wes is a player who has shown that he should be one of the first names on the team sheet when fit.

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

No I am making the assumption that O'Neill is pragmatic because that is what all successful managers are and seeing as the results have been good so far under O'Neill and O'Neill has had a very successful managerial career so far I'd say it is safe to say he is being pragmatic with his team selections.

You are conning yourself. O'Neill has not had a very succesful career.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Hoolahan is being over rated, he's good player but I wouldn't have him starting in the team ahead of Arter,McCarthy/Whelan and Hendrick in a 3 man midfield for the game against Austria.

Good for you.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Pro. F wrote: »

You are conning yourself. O'Neill has not had a very succesful career.



Good for you.

He's been a manager at the top level at club level of the game for over 20 years.


He won 2 cups with Leicester and turned them into a solid premier league team , he stopped Rangers dominance in Scotland and got Celtic to the UEFA cup final and he's the last manager to get Villa into the top 6 in the premier league.He qualified Ireland for the European championship is his first qualifying campaign.

That counts an extremely successful managerial career.99% of people who make an attempt to become a manger would love to have a record like O'Neills.

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

He's been a manager at the top level at club level of the game for over 20 years.

He won 2 cups with Leicester and turned them into a solid premier league team , he stopped Rangers dominance in Scotland and got Celtic to the UEFA cup final and he's the last manager to get Villa into the top 6 in the premier league.He qualified Ireland for the European championship is his first qualifying campaign.

That counts an extremely successful managerial career.99% of people who make an attempt to become a manger would love to have a record like O'Neills.

Yes, for 99% of managers that would be an amazing career. 99% of managers never come close to the top of the game. O'Neill has and he has a couple of league cups and some success in Scotland to show for it. He's also the last manager to get Villa into the top 6, which is not at all impressive given the money he had to spend.

That is all amazing when compared to some manager who never made it above League 2 or something. But none of it is particularly impressive for a manager at the level we pay for.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes, for 99% of managers that would be an amazing career. 99% of managers never come close to the top of the game. O'Neill has and he has a couple of league cups and some success in Scotland to show for it. He's also the last manager to get Villa into the top 6, which is not at all impressive given the money he had to spend.

That is all amazing when compared to some manager who never made it above League 2 or something. But none of it is particularly impressive for a manager at the level we pay for.

How well have Villa done since he left?

Name me the managers with a better record than O'Neill who would take the Ireland job?

He's been a very successful manager by any reasoned measurement and there aren't too many managers better than him that would want to manage Ireland.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes, for 99% of managers that would be an amazing career. 99% of managers never come close to the top of the game. O'Neill has and he has a couple of league cups and some success in Scotland to show for it. He's also the last manager to get Villa into the top 6, which is not at all impressive given the money he had to spend.

That is all amazing when compared to some manager who never made it above League 2 or something. But none of it is particularly impressive for a manager at the level we pay for.

Before O'Neill got the job you were one of those on here against him getting it. You are still banging that drum despite the results O'Neill has provided with qualification for the last Euro's, a decent display in that Euro's getting out of the Group and continuing on from that with a good start with 7 points from 3 games in the current World Cup qualification campaign.

You take those results for granted and denigrate them in your inability to stop banging your drum.

Your position is absurd and laughable.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Before O'Neill got the job you were one of those on here against him getting it. You are still banging that drum despite the results O'Neill has provided with qualification for the last Euro's, a decent display in that Euro's getting out of the Group and continuing on from that with a good start with 7 points from 3 games in the current World Cup qualification campaign.

You take those results for granted and denigrate them in your inability to stop banging your drum.

Your position is absurd and laughable.

I think O'Neill has done more than enough to stay in the job. Pretty much in line with what I said was his ability before he got the job. I don't take these results for granted and lol at the idea that I'm denigrating them. Overall, his performance in the job has been decent. So, even though I don't rate him, I'm not calling for him to go.

That does not mean I have to agree with everything he does, nor do I have to agree with the clearly wrong statement that he has had a very successful career.

Arghus

Pro. F wrote: »

I think O'Neill has done more than enough to stay in the job. Pretty much in line with what I said was his ability before he got the job. I don't take these results for granted and lol at the idea that I'm denigrating them. Overall, his performance in the job has been decent. So, even though I don't rate him, I'm not calling for him to go.

That does not mean I have to agree with everything he does, nor do I have to agree that with the clearly wrong statement that he has had a very successful career.

Define successful career as you understand it.

I'm no O' Neill fanboy, but I think he's had a pretty good career in football management.

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

How well have Villa done since he left?

Terribly. They spend shag all money these days. Utterly ridiculous to hold Villa's travails post MON as evidence in his favour.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Name me the managers with a better record than O'Neill who would take the Ireland job?

He's been a very successful manager by any reasoned measurement and there aren't too many managers better than him that would want to manage Ireland.

We pay our managers a freaking fortune. There is no reason to believe that we would have any more difficulty attracting top class managers than any other high paying international team.

I'm not going to get into naming managers we could get with you, because those arguments are impossible to prove. Without having the ability to ask managers directly we (fans discussing it, as opposed to the FAI) can't even find out what managers are currently interested in doing some International management.

There is one manager we know would have been interested and has a more succesful record - Trap. Now I loathed Trap's management of the team and would take O'Neill any day of the week over him (and I called for MON over Trap, while Trap was in charge). But the good things about MON (and there are some good things) are not the success in his career. He has been moderately successful at best - nothing like "very successful," as you put it.

GLaDOS

So how about that Wesley Hoolahan?

Pro. F

Arghus wrote: »

Define successful career as you understand it.

I'm no O' Neill fanboy, but I think he's had a pretty good career in football management.

"Very succesful" is the claim that was made. A very successful managerial career would include some league medals in a big league.

Martin O'Neill is a mid-table PL manager at best. If you compare that to managers at lower levels that could look great. And then you could describe him as a very successful manager. But there's no reason to do that.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Pro. F wrote: »

Terribly. They spend shag all money these days. Utterly ridiculous to hold Villa's travails post MON as evidence in his favour.



We pay our managers a freaking fortune. There is no reason to believe that we would have any more difficulty attracting top class managers than any other high paying international team.

I'm not going to get into naming managers we could get with you, because those arguments are impossible to prove. Without having the ability to ask managers directly we (fans discussing it, as opposed to the FAI) can't even find out what managers are currently interested in doing some International management.

There is one manager we know would have been interested and has a more succesful record - Trap. Now I loathed Trap's management of the team and would take O'Neill any day of the week over him (and I called for MON over Trap, while Trap was in charge). But the good things about MON (and there are some good things) are not the success in his career. He has been moderately successful at best - nothing like "very successful," as you put it.

He has been very successful.You just don't want to accept it.Anybody who has managed for around 20 years at the highest level in the UK and then is successful as an international manager has had a very successful career as a very small percentage of managers have managed at such a high level for so long.

He got Celtic to a European Final (they have only ever appeared in 3 and the only other manager who got them to a European final is considered to be an all time great) where they were only beaten by a team who went on to win the champions league the next year.

TheCitizen

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

He has been very successful.You just don't want to accept it.Anybody who has managed for around 20 years at the highest level in the UK and then is successful as an international manager has had a very successful career as a very small percentage of managers have managed at such a high level for so long.

He got Celtic to a European Final (they have only ever appeared in 3 and the only other manager who got them to a European final is considered to be an all time great) where they were only beaten by a team who went on to win the champions league the next year.

None of that matters because Pro.F "doesn't rate" him:pac:

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

"Very succesful" is the claim that was made. A very successful managerial career would include some league medals in a big league.

Martin O'Neill is a mid-table PL manager at best. If you compare that to managers at lower levels that could look great. And then you could describe him as a very successful manager. But there's no reason to do that.

A "mid table manager at best" you say, do you think we should have a top of the table EPL manager like Guardiola perhaps? England pay about 4m a year to their manager and their recent managers are Hodgson, Allardyce and Southgate. Do you think any of them are better than O'Neill?

Also you just ignore his time at Celtic, which was the prime of his managerial career. Obviously you look down your nose at Celtic and Scottish football. When O'Nell went to Celtic they were 2nd fiddle to Rangers, they have been top dogs in Scotland ever since, that started with O'Neill. In Europe Celtic had been a basket case for decades with a losing mentality, O'Neill came in and changed that and brought in a winning mentality which endures today where Parkhead is a fortress on CL nights and where Celtic can put it up to any team no matter how big or expensively assembled they are. Again that started with O'Neill, and was the main reason why I and others put him forward as an ideal candidate for the Ireland job as someone who is capable of getting a team to punch it's weight and then up their game when they meet a team with a bigger reputation. That is exactly what O'Neill has delivered thus far.

"A very successful manager" in your head "would include some league medals in a big league." Like Trap perhaps? Do you think O'Neill is doing a better job than Trap did? O'Neill has already done a better job than Trap did in a 3rd of the time he was here. You're living in cloud cuckoo land pal.

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

He has been very successful.You just don't want to accept it.Anybody who has managed for around 20 years at the highest level in the UK and then is successful as an international manager has had a very successful career as a very small percentage of managers have managed at such a high level for so long.

He has not managed at the highest level in the UK. The highest level in the UK are the title contenders in the PL. MON never got there, MON is PL mid-table standard. If you insist on comparing him to the entirety of managers in the game then you could say that he has had a very successful career, but that would be an extremely imprecise way of looking at it. You have zoomed out so far that you are lumping him in with Ferguson and Mourinho and the like - those who actually have managed at highest level in the UK.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

He got Celtic to a European Final (they have only ever appeared in 3 and the only other manager who got them to a European final is considered to be an all time great) where they were only beaten by a team who went on to win the champions league the next year.

That is some success worth noting. But that should not be enough to call him a very successful manager on the scale we are looking at.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

A "mid table manager at best" you say, do you think we should have a top of the table EPL manager like Guardiola perhaps? England pay about 4m a year to their manager and their recent managers are Hodgson, Allardyce and Southgate. Do you think any of them are better than O'Neill?

No I don't think we should have a manager who is currently in the top pool of world managerial jobs. That is a ridiculous suggestion. But that doesn't change the fact that MON has not had a very successful managerial career.

No I don't think that Hodgeson and Allardyce (Southgate is only the caretaker so far) are significantly better than O'Neill. But that doesn't change the fact that MON has not had a very successful managerial career.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Also you just ignore his time at Celtic, which was the prime of his managerial career. Obviously you look down your nose at Celtic and Scottish football. When O'Nell went to Celtic they were 2nd fiddle to Rangers, they have been top dogs in Scotland ever since, that started with O'Neill. In Europe Celtic had been a basket case for decades with a losing mentality, O'Neill came in and changed that and brought in a winning mentality which endures today where Parkhead is a fortress on CL nights and where Celtic can put it up to any team no matter how big or expensively assembled they are. Again that started with O'Neill, and was the main reason why I and others put him forward as an ideal candidate for the Ireland job as someone who is capable of getting a team to punch it's weight and then up their game when they meet a team with a bigger reputation. That is exactly what O'Neill has delivered thus far.

Yes I do look down my nose at Celtic and Scottish football when it comes to assessing managerial success. When assessing managerial success, doing a better job than Wim Jansen, Venglos, Barnes, etc is not that impressive. The job he did at Celtic is not to be sniffed at, but it was not so good that I would say that he has had a very successful managerial career.

TheCitizen wrote: »

"A very successful manager" in your head "would include some league medals in a big league." Like Trap pwrhaps? Do you think O'Neill is doing a better job than Trap did? O'Neill has already done a better job than Trap did in a 3rd of the time he was here. You're living in cloud cuckoo land pal.

Yes exactly, like Trap. Trap is certainly a manager you could say has had a very successful career. Does that mean I would rather have Trap? No, it doesn't. When Trap was in charge I said that MON could achieve all Trap could without the bollocks. Does that mean that MON has had a very successful managerial career? No it does not.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Pro. F wrote: »

He has not managed at the highest level in the UK. The highest level in the UK are the title contenders in the PL. MON never got there, MON is PL mid-table standard. If you insist on comparing him to the entirety of managers in the game then you could say that he has had a very successful career, but that would be an extremely imprecise way of looking at it. You have zoomed out so far that you are lumping him in with Ferguson and Mourinho and the like - those who actually have managed at highest level in the UK.



That is some success worth noting. But that should not be enough to call him a very successful manager on the scale we are looking at.

The top level in the UK is the EPL, O'Neill has been a manager there for most of his career.

He's not an elite manger like Klopp,Mourihnio,Guardiola,Wenger,Conte,Po but he's the next level below which I would class as being a very good manager.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

No I don't think we should have a manager who is currently in the top pool of world managerial jobs. That is a ridiculous suggestion. But that doesn't change the fact that MON has not had a very successful managerial career.

No I don't think that Hodgeson and Allardyce (Southgate is only the caretaker so far) are significantly better than O'Neill. But that doesn't change the fact that MON has not had a very successful managerial career.



Yes I do look down my nose at Celtic and Scottish football when it comes to assessing managerial success. When assessing managerial success, doing a better job than Wim Jansen, Venglos, Barnes, etc is not that impressive. The job he did at Celtic is not to be sniffed at, but it was not so good that I would say that he has had a very successful managerial career.



Yes exactly, like Trap. Trap is certainly a manager you could say has had a very successful career. Does that mean I would rather have Trap? No, it doesn't. When Trap was in charge I said that MON could achieve all Trap could without the bollocks. Does that mean that MON has had a very successful managerial career? No it does not.

Would you say MON has had a successful managerial career, is it just the word "very" that you take issue with? I think you're tripping over yourself on semantics while trying to look down your nose.

jaykay74

GLaDOS wrote: »

So how about that Wesley Hoolahan?

:pac:

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The top level in the UK is the EPL, O'Neill has been a manager there for most of his career.

There is a distinct gap between the top managers in the EPL and the group MON was in. To say that he has managed at the highest level in the UK is simply false.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

He's not an elite manger like Klopp,Mourihnio,Guardiola,Wenger,Conte,Po but he's the next level below which I would class as being a very good manager.

We were talking about success, not quality.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Would you say MON has had a successful managerial career, is it just the word "very" that you take issue with? I think you're tripping over yourself on semantics while trying to look down your nose.

You can call it semantics if you like. O'Neill has been a second tier manager in UK football throughout his career. You don't need to look down your nose to point out that reality. It should not be such a controversial opinion.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Pro. F wrote: »

There is a distinct gap between the top managers in the EPL and the group MON was in. To say that he has managed at the highest level in the UK is simply false.



We were talking about success, not quality.

The highest level in the UK is the EPL, he has managed there for most of his career.


He has had a lot of success which I have outlined already.

No point continuing this further you clearly don't like O'Neill and can't accept he's had a successful career.He's probably in the top 5% of managers in the last 20 - 25 years in the UK considering all the people who have attempted management in that time.