Wes Hoolohan

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

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.

This is what you said about managing a club like Celtic; "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".........But then you say......."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." I reckon you're tieing yourself in knots with your semantics.

Pro. F

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

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

The highest level in the UK are the title contending managers in the EPL. MON has been in the tier below that. There is a distinct difference between the two. Trying to lump all EPL managers in together is the wrong way to look at it.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

This is what you said about managing a club like Celtic; "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".........But then you say......."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." I reckon you're tieing yourself in knots with your semantics.

I reckon you are trying to take the conversation away from the point that MON is a second tier UK manager and on to the non-issue of whether or not I am looking down my nose.

crkball6

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

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

Less than half of it.

MON is loved by many for his attitude, passion and honesty because of this some people then attach what they think to be true to him when in reality it's not.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

I reckon you are trying to take the conversation away from the point that MON is a second tier UK manager and on to the non-issue of whether or not I am looking down my nose.

You used the phrase "looking down your nose" yourself, while also in another post say "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."

You also say in another post that "We pay our managers a freaking fortune." but later say "No I don't think that Hodgeson and Allardyce (Southgate is only the caretaker so far) are significantly better than O'Neill." The English FA are probably paying those guys at least twice as much as MON gets for doing the Ireland job.

You are trying very hard to get a dig at O'Neill but the results he is achieving with Ireland is making it impossible for you to back up your attempts to get digs in at him.

Also you're contradicting yourself to the point of being nonsensical.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

You used the phrase "looking down your nose" yourself, while also in another post say "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."

There is no contradiction in those two quotes.

TheCitizen wrote: »

You also say in another post that "We pay our managers a freaking fortune." but later say "No I don't think that Hodgeson and Allardyce (Southgate is only the caretaker so far) are significantly better than O'Neill." The English FA are probably paying those guys at least twice as much as MON gets for doing the Ireland job.

I don't think the English FA are good at selecting managers.

TheCitizen wrote: »

You are trying very hard to get a dig at O'Neill but the results he is achieving with Ireland is making it impossible for you to back up your attempts to get digs in at him.

Pointing out that O'Neill has not had a very successful managerial career is not getting a dig in at him.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Also you're contradicting yourself to the point of being nonsensical.

Got any quotes of me contradicting myself on this?

eagle eye

Pro. F wrote: »

Pointing out that O'Neill has not had a very successful managerial career is not getting a dig in at him.

He has had a very successful career. The fact that he never managed a super rich club should not be held against him.

He had Villa, when they had a bit of money, up challenging for the top four consistently. He won a League Cup twice with Leicester. He won numerous titles with Celtic and lost to a team in the Uefa Cup final who went on to win the Champion's league the next season.

When you consider the clubs he has managed he has had a very successful career.

It doesn't mean that he is being considered as an all time great like Ferguson, Wenger, Guardiola or Mourinho but he has had a very successful career all the same.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

There is no contradiction in those two quotes.

There is.

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't think the English FA are good at selecting managers.

The point is the English FA are paying at least twice as much as we are for managers that you've said yourself are no better than ours.

Pro. F wrote: »

Pointing out that O'Neill has not had a very successful managerial career is not getting a dig in at him.

In your words he has not "had a very successful managerial career" in many others views he has had a very successful managerial career. You make out that you're making some point of fact, you're not, it appears that you're just giving your opinion that the word "very" shouldn't be applied.

The truth is you don't like MON for some reason, but when asked could we get/afford a different manager who could do a better job, you have no answer. And that's because he is the best we can get, he has proven that so far on the job and we are lucky to have him because he's also a good fit for the job.

That doesn't mean he gets every little thing 100% right, but no manager does.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

There is.

Yeah? Point out the contradiction in those two quotes so.

TheCitizen wrote: »

The point is the English FA are paying at least twice as much as we are for managers that you've said yourself are no better than ours.

And this is supposed to prove that MON has been a very successful manager. That is quite the reach.

TheCitizen wrote: »

In your words he has not "had a very successful managerial career" in many others views he has had a very successful managerial career. You make out that you're making some point of fact, you're not, it appears that you're just giving your opinion that the word "very" shouldn't be applied.

Ah the old "that's just your opinion man." I love that line of argument. MON is a second tier UK manager. He has not had a very successful managerial career. Cry all you want about those statements, it doesn't make them any less true.

TheCitizen wrote: »

The truth is you don't like MON for some reason, but when asked could we get/afford a different manager who could do a better job, you have no answer. And that's because he is the best we can get, he has proven that so far on the job and we are lucky to have him because he's also a good fit for the job.

That doesn't mean he gets every little thing 100% right, but no manager does.

If MON quit tomorrow I could not even name 5 decent managers who would be seriously interested in the job. Because it is pretty much impossible as a fan to know which managers would take the job and which wouldn't, because we can't ask them. What we do know is that we pay a lot, so managers with very successful careers behind them are not out of the question at all. That does not mean that they are always the best candidates. But it does mean that in the context we are looking at, referring to MON's managerial career as very successful is inaccurate.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah? Point out the contradiction in those two quotes so.


And this is supposed to prove that MON has been a very successful manager. That is quite the reach.


Ah the old "that's just your opinion man." I love that line of argument. MON is a second tier UK manager. He has not had a very successful managerial career. Cry all you want about those statements, it doesn't make them any less true.



If MON quit tomorrow I could not even name 5 decent managers who would be seriously interested in the job. Because it is pretty much impossible as a fan to know which managers would take the job and which wouldn't, because we can't ask them. What we do know is that we pay a lot, so managers with very successful careers behind them are not out of the question at all. That does not mean that they are always the best candidates. But it does mean that in the context we are looking at, referring to MON's managerial career as very successful is inaccurate.

Maybe you should start a thread on whether or not MON's managerial career was successful thus far but not "very" successful, it seems "very" important to you.

I'll add we are doing well to have O'Neill right now, when you consider the other managers we've had in recent times. Of the last 3 we've had prior to MON only Trap got us qualified but when we did qualify under him we performed abysmally at the tournament. That's the context that's important here, not whether you think he's had a successful managerial career as opposed to a "very" successful managerial career.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Maybe you should start a thread on whether or not MON's managerial career was successful thus far but not "very" successful, it seems "very" important to you.

No more important to me than it is to you.

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'll add we are doing well to have O'Neill right now, when you consider the other managers we've had in recent times. Of the last 3 we've had prior to MON only Trap got us qualified but when we did qualify under him we performed abysmally at the tournament. That's the context that's important here, not whether you think he's had a successful managerial career as opposed to a "very" successful managerial career.

O'Neill is better than the recent managers. You'll get no argument from me on that. That does not mean we have to pretend that MON has had a very successful managerial career.

Arghus

I can't tell if this thread has become frustrating or very frustrating.

GLaDOS

https://twitter.com/Baller__Street/status/787363463127568384

Ulysses Gaze

Pro. F wrote: »

No more important to me than it is to you.



O'Neill is better than the recent managers. You'll get no argument from me on that. That does not mean we have to pretend that MON has had a very successful managerial career.

"Anybody who can do anything in Leicester but make a jumper has got to be a genius." - Brian Clough.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

O'Neill is better than the recent managers. You'll get no argument from me on that.

I think O'Neill could go on to be the best manager that we've had or will have. Depends on the players of course, but he has the ability to get the best out of them and in the context of this thread that includes Wes Hoolahan.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

I think O'Neill could go on to be the best manager that we've had or will have. Depends on the players of course, but he has the ability to get the best out of them and in the context of this thread that includes Wes Hoolahan.

I'm sure not playing Wes in difficilt away games because "he's small" will get the best out of Wes, yeah.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm sure not playing Wes in difficilt away games because "he's small" will get the best out of Wes, yeah.

Did you just make that up yourself that he doesn't start every game because "he's small"?


Hoolahan is on record himself saying he isn't always available or fully match fit to play two games in quick succession. As I said I'd like to see him start every game, but it appears to be the case that he's not always fully match fit to play every game. At Norwich especially last season in the EPL he was often rested and wouldn't always play every game in succession. It seems to be difficult for you to accept this.

He is 34 as well, so it's probably not a great idea to be too reliant on him.

TheDoc

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

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.

O'Neill, when you speak to some Villa fans, has a lot to answer for. He has a horrendous track record of leaving disjointed, incoherent squads in his wake. Not forgetting typically expensive squads, that he has been bankrolled form claiming he would achieve x or y which he didn't.

Calling O'Neill a successful manager is being sucked into the English PFM circle jerk who claim people like Pulis, Allardyce and Redknapp are "successful managers" or "great managers" which is totally inaccurate.

O'Neill was out of football for a full season after getting sacked at Sunderland. I'd argue his track record had become less then impressive to Clubs are he continued, especially the mess of squads he would leave behind on incredible bloated wages.

I think it's fair enough to say he has had some success, but that doesn't make him infallible and because the team are getting results doesn't mean we shouldn't question some decisions or methods. His clear issue with Hoolihan is one of them.

I think it's also pointless asking for "who with a better record" type stuff. There is a reason top managers arn't working in international football, or sometimes it being used as a catapult for some failed managers to get their stock back up.

It's ridiculous that the FAI keep going the way they do, with 3rd party funded wages to attract household names. And these household names are doing little in the way of improving the players, which is fair enough the time is limited on int duty. But there is an ocean of coaches or managers who could take a country like Irelands national team and make it greater then the sum of its parts. Which O'Neill is not doing by the way, hes just grinding results. Grinding and grinding.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

Did you just make that up yourself that he doesn't start every game because "he's small"?


Hoolahan is on record himself saying he isn't always available or fully match fit to play two games in quick succession. As I said I'd like to see him start every game, but it appears to be the case that he's not always fully match fit to play every game. At Norwich especially last season in the EPL he was often rested and wouldn't always play every game in succession. It seems to be difficult for you to accept this.

He is 34 as well, so it's probably not a great idea to be too reliant on him.

In fairness O'Neill has an obvious pattern of liking physicality. While seperate to this topic, it's also surfaced when discussing the decision to include Duffy over Keogh. One has been doing pretty decent for his club and been pretty reliant for Ireland, the other has had some shocking runs of form, looks totally out of his depth and brings only aerial presence, which has also looked pretty terrible when used.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

O'Neill, when you speak to some Villa fans, has a lot to answer for. He has a horrendous track record of leaving disjointed, incoherent squads in his wake. Not forgetting typically expensive squads, that he has been bankrolled form claiming he would achieve x or y which he didn't.

Calling O'Neill a successful manager is being sucked into the English PFM circle jerk who claim people like Pulis, Allardyce and Redknapp are "successful managers" or "great managers" which is totally inaccurate.

O'Neill was out of football for a full season after getting sacked at Sunderland. I'd argue his track record had become less then impressive to Clubs are he continued, especially the mess of squads he would leave behind on incredible bloated wages.

I think it's also pointless asking for "who with a better record" type stuff. There is a reason top managers arn't working in international football, or sometimes it being used as a catapult for some failed managers to get their stock back up.

It's ridiculous that the FAI keep going the way they do, with 3rd party funded wages to attract household names. And these household names are doing little in the way of improving the players, which is fair enough the time is limited on int duty. But there is an ocean of coaches or managers who could take a country like Irelands national team and make it greater then the sum of its parts. Which O'Neill is not doing by the way, hes just grinding results. Grinding and grinding.

Incredible.

Imagine what you'd say if we didn't qualify for the Euros or if we performed poorly at the Euros like we did under Trap in 2012. We're in good nick so far in this campaign as well.

Ireland qualifying for tournaments and doing well when we get there like we have under O'Neill is not to be taken for granted, you would know that if you were aware of our overall record.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

In fairness O'Neill has an obvious pattern of liking physicality. While seperate to this topic, it's also surfaced when discussing the decision to include Duffy over Keogh. One has been doing pretty decent for his club and been pretty reliant for Ireland, the other has had some shocking runs of form, looks totally out of his depth and brings only aerial presence, which has also looked pretty terrible when used.

I wouldn't agree with every decision or selection that O'Neill makes on the face of it, but I reckon as long as he continues to get results then there's little to complain or argue about.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

O'Neill, when you speak to some Villa fans, has a lot to answer for. He has a horrendous track record of leaving disjointed, incoherent squads in his wake. Not forgetting typically expensive squads, that he has been bankrolled form claiming he would achieve x or y which he didn't.

Calling O'Neill a successful manager is being sucked into the English PFM circle jerk who claim people like Pulis, Allardyce and Redknapp are "successful managers" or "great managers" which is totally inaccurate.

O'Neill was out of football for a full season after getting sacked at Sunderland. I'd argue his track record had become less then impressive to Clubs are he continued, especially the mess of squads he would leave behind on incredible bloated wages.

I think it's fair enough to say he has had some success, but that doesn't make him infallible and because the team are getting results doesn't mean we shouldn't question some decisions or methods. His clear issue with Hoolihan is one of them.

I think it's also pointless asking for "who with a better record" type stuff. There is a reason top managers arn't working in international football, or sometimes it being used as a catapult for some failed managers to get their stock back up.

It's ridiculous that the FAI keep going the way they do, with 3rd party funded wages to attract household names. And these household names are doing little in the way of improving the players, which is fair enough the time is limited on int duty. But there is an ocean of coaches or managers who could take a country like Irelands national team and make it greater then the sum of its parts. Which O'Neill is not doing by the way, hes just grinding results. Grinding and grinding.

Are you a Man U fan TheDoc? If we had Mourinho as manager do you think he'd approach things differently than MON? He'd be more "negative" if anything.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

Incredible.

Imagine what you'd say if we didn't qualify for the Euros or if we performed poorly at the Euros like we did under Trap in 2012. We're in good nick so far in this campaign as well.

Ireland qualifying for tournaments and doing well when we get there like we have under O'Neill is not to be taken for granted, you would know that if you were aware of our overall record.

I'm perfectly aware it's not to be taken for granted, believe me.

But I think it's perfectly reasonable for fans to question some decision making, when your Football Association are trying to attract household names, with extortionate salaries partly funded by a third party. With that comes some expectations and maybe the expectation of a bit more then what in fairness, plenty of other managers could do. But that is part of the argument Pro.F was making. O'Neill is not an exceptional manager, he is a general run of the mill, merry go round manager. A manager like I said who was out of work, with no one really chasing him down for a job.

If we didn't qualify for the Euros, I'd question what on earth O'Neill is doing in his position, like I was when it looked like we would not qualify.

I thought Trapp was an abhorant coach and manager and he qualified in a tougher setup. So yeah I'd have some serous questions if O'Neill failed to secure that qualification, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

There is some decent players in the setup now for an international team in the type of qualification we will go through.

TheDoc

TheCitizen wrote: »

Are you a Man U fan TheDoc? If we had Mourinho as manager do you think he'd approach things differently than MON? He'd be more "negative" if anything.

Yes I'm a United fan, and I don't think I want to talk about Mourinho.

Just had a morning of onslaught from fellow United posters when I shared my feelings about last night

Dirty Dingus McGee

TheDoc wrote: »

O'Neill, when you speak to some Villa fans, has a lot to answer for. He has a horrendous track record of leaving disjointed, incoherent squads in his wake. Not forgetting typically expensive squads, that he has been bankrolled form claiming he would achieve x or y which he didn't.

Calling O'Neill a successful manager is being sucked into the English PFM circle jerk who claim people like Pulis, Allardyce and Redknapp are "successful managers" or "great managers" which is totally inaccurate.

O'Neill was out of football for a full season after getting sacked at Sunderland. I'd argue his track record had become less then impressive to Clubs are he continued, especially the mess of squads he would leave behind on incredible bloated wages.

I think it's fair enough to say he has had some success, but that doesn't make him infallible and because the team are getting results doesn't mean we shouldn't question some decisions or methods. His clear issue with Hoolihan is one of them.

I think it's also pointless asking for "who with a better record" type stuff. There is a reason top managers arn't working in international football, or sometimes it being used as a catapult for some failed managers to get their stock back up.

It's ridiculous that the FAI keep going the way they do, with 3rd party funded wages to attract household names. And these household names are doing little in the way of improving the players, which is fair enough the time is limited on int duty. But there is an ocean of coaches or managers who could take a country like Irelands national team and make it greater then the sum of its parts. Which O'Neill is not doing by the way, hes just grinding results. Grinding and grinding.

But those managers are successful manages.You work for 20 years as a manager and you've beaten 99% of people who attempt to become managers.That categorizes them as being successful.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware it's not to be taken for granted, believe me.

But I think it's perfectly reasonable for fans to question some decision making, when your Football Association are trying to attract household names, with extortionate salaries partly funded by a third party. With that comes some expectations and maybe the expectation of a bit more then what in fairness, plenty of other managers could do. But that is part of the argument Pro.F was making. O'Neill is not an exceptional manager, he is a general run of the mill, merry go round manager. A manager like I said who was out of work, with no one really chasing him down for a job.

If we didn't qualify for the Euros, I'd question what on earth O'Neill is doing in his position, like I was when it looked like we would not qualify.

I thought Trapp was an abhorant coach and manager and he qualified in a tougher setup. So yeah I'd have some serous questions if O'Neill failed to secure that qualification, and I don't think that is unreasonable.

There is some decent players in the setup now for an international team in the type of qualification we will go through.

With O'Neill qualification is a must otherwise his salary doesn't pay for itself and he would be removed. He has to deliver qualification. That is why he is in the position. And it's not just qualification either, a decent level of performance has to be delivered when we get there as well otherwise momentum is lost like it was with Trap. If Ireland had performed in Euro 16 like Trap's team in Euro 2012, MON would've walked at the end of it.

For us he is no "run of the mill manager", he is delivering qualification and good performances at the competition when we qualify thus far. If he keeps it going he could become our most successful manager despite not having a great depth of talent to choose from. If he is successful in this qualification campaign he becomes our most successful manager to date bar Jack Charlton, if that happens your "run of the mill manager" comment becomes redundant. I think it already is.

TheCitizen

TheDoc wrote: »

Yes I'm a United fan, and I don't think I want to talk about Mourinho.

Just had a morning of onslaught from fellow United posters when I shared my feelings about last night

Are you saying you don't like Mourinho's style of play? I brought up with Man U fans on the match thread last night that they've spent a hell of a lot of money for Jose Mourinho to come along and instruct his expensive team to play long ball football and chase down the second phase possession in the opposition half like they were at last night. You don't need to spend 100's of millions to get a team to play like that and some of those Man U fans would be on here criticising O'Neill for employing similar tactics with his Ireland team. Some of them couldn't bring themselves to recognise that Jose has Man U playing long ball football.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Did you just make that up yourself that he doesn't start every game because "he's small"?

Iirc O'Neill said that himself in response to a post match question about Hoolahan playing. O'Neill talked about the atmosphere and the pressure and how it's difficilt playing away from home and then referred to Wes's size as a reason for not starting him in such games.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Hoolahan is on record himself saying he isn't always available or fully match fit to play two games in quick succession. As I said I'd like to see him start every game, but it appears to be the case that he's not always fully match fit to play every game. At Norwich especially last season in the EPL he was often rested and wouldn't always play every game in succession. It seems to be difficult for you to accept this.

Like I've said to you plenty of times before, I'm not denying that Wes's game time needs to be managed. But it is also true that there have been enough times when age/fitness has clearly not been the reason for Wes not starting. Like when there's only been one qualifying fixture in an international break, or when the other fixture has been against minnows.

TheCitizen wrote: »

He is 34 as well, so it's probably not a great idea to be too reliant on him.

Playing our best players in our most difficult games is a great idea. If Wes retires a year after the full time whistle that still shouldn't affect the starting line-up.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

Iirc O'Neill said that himself in response to a post match question about Hoolahan playing. O'Neill talked about the atmosphere and the pressure and how it's difficilt playing away from home and then referred to Wes's size as a reason for not starting him in such games.

Are you sure you recall that correctly?

Pro. F wrote: »

Like I've said to you plenty of times before, I'm not denying that Wes's game time needs to be managed. But it is also true that there have been enough times when age/fitness has clearly not been the reason for Wes not starting. Like when there's only been one qualifying fixture in an international break, or when the other fixture has been against minnows.



Playing our best players in our most difficult games is a great idea. If Wes retires a year after the full time whistle that still shouldn't affect the starting line-up.

Personally I would start him more often. Still as you concede there is an element of game time management with Hoolahan.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Are you sure you recall that correctly?

Yep, but I can't find the video so can't prove it to you.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Personally I would start him more often. Still as you concede there is an element of game time management with Hoolahan.

Concede me bollix. I've said plenty of times that of course he can't play every game because of his age and yet you still bring it up every time as if it's new information, pretending like it's the only reason he hasn't played in important games.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

Yep, but I can't find the video so can't prove it to you.

Or perhaps you just didn't recall correctly?

Pro. F wrote: »

Concede me bollix. I've said plenty of times that of course he can't play every game because of his age and yet you still bring it up every time as if it's new information, pretending like it's the only reason he hasn't played in important games.

That's not what I inferred, try reading it again there. And yes indeed you did concede:)

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Or perhaps you just didn't recall correctly?

Yeah we could play this game all day.

TheCitizen wrote: »

That's not what I inferred, try reading it again there.

That is clearly what you were trying to portray. If you've changed your mind now and agree that MON has benched Wes in important games for tactical reasons - as opposed to fitness concerns - then good for you.

TheCitizen wrote: »

And yes indeed you did concede:)

For me to have conceded that point - that Wes can't play every game because of his age - I would have had to been debating the point with you. I wasn't. Bringing up something that there is not a disagreement on and then claiming that the other side have conceded the point is inane.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah we could play this game all day.

You have a habit of that kind of thing.

Pro. F wrote: »

For me to have conceded that point - that Wes can't play every game because of his age - I would have had to been debating the point with you. I wasn't. Bringing up something that there is not a disagreement on and then claiming that the other side have conceded the point is inane.

Case in point.

Pro. F wrote: »

That is clearly what you were trying to portray. If you've changed your mind now and agree that MON has benched Wes in important games for tactical reasons - as opposed to fitness concerns - then good for you.

I think it has been a bit of both at different times. I have always said I'd start him more often, but as I also said there is definitely a case of game time management with him.

This is getting tedious.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

I think it has been a bit of both at different times. I have always said I'd start him more often, but as I also said there is definitely a case of game time management with him.

So you agree with me that O'Neill has left Wes out of important games for tactical rather than fitness reasons. Which is all that's needed to prove the crux of my original point that O'Neill does not get the best out of Hoolahan.

Cool. Bye now.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

So you agree with me that O'Neill has left Wes out of important games for tactical rather than fitness reasons. Which is all that's needed to prove the crux of my original point that O'Neill does not get the best out of Hoolahan.

Cool. Bye now.

Nope. What I said was on the face of it personally I'd like to start him more often, but I'm not the manager and ultimately if he keeps getting the required results then there isn't much of an argument there.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Nope. What I said was on the face of it personally I'd like to start him more often, but I'm not the manager and ultimately if he keeps getting the required results then there isn't much of an argument there.

So you don't agree that O'Neill has left Wes out of important games based on tactics rather than fitness?

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

So you don't agree that O'Neill has left Wes out of important games based on tactics rather than fitness?

I think he might argue that keeping him for certain games gets the best out of him as he's fresh for those games.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

I think he might argue that keeping him for certain games gets the best out of him as he's fresh for those games.

Yeah, like when MON benched Wes for the away trip to Georgia last campaign and so had him fresh for the subsequent game against nobody because we only had one game in that international break. Or when we were facing Gibraltar and Germany in the space of a few days and he played Wes against the mighty Gibraltar and benched him for the German game. Or when MON benched him for the trip to Serbia this campaign so he was fresh to play nobody because, again, we only had one game in that international break. Or when he benched him against Georgia so he would be fresh for the much easier task of facing Moldova a few days later.

It is clear that O'Neill has benched Wes in several important games as a tactical choice rather than just because of trying to keep him fresh.

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

Yeah, like when MON benched Wes for the away trip to Georgia last campaign and so had him fresh for the subsequent game against nobody because we only had one game in that international break. Or when we were facing Gibraltar and Germany in the space of a few days and he played Wes against the mighty Gibraltar and benched him for the German game. Or when MON benched him for the trip to Serbia this campaign so he was fresh to play nobody because, again, we only had one game in that international break. Or when he benched him against Georgia so he would be fresh for the much easier task of facing Moldova a few days later.

It is clear that O'Neill has benched Wes in several important games as a tactical choice rather than just because of trying to keep him fresh.

Away to Georgia he was playing McGeady in that role. McGeady's career has more or less stalled since then, in that match though he scored two goals that won the game. Away to Germany Hoolahan came on and made an impact as a sub helped to set up the late equaliser. Serbia? He could've started, I would've started him. The Georgia Moldova games, Hoolahan was vital and fresh for the second game and with Brady out I think it worked out well.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Away to Georgia he was playing McGeady in that role. McGeady's career has more or less stalled since then, in that match though he scored two goals that won the game. Away to Germany Hoolahan came on and made an impact as a sub helped to set up the late equaliser. Serbia? He could've started, I would've started him.

So, as I said, it is clear that O'Neill has benched Wes in several important games as a tactical choice rather than just because of trying to keep him fresh.

TheCitizen wrote: »

The Georgia Moldova games, Hoolahan was vital and fresh for the second game and with Brady out I think it worked out well.

So, as I said, MON benched Wes against Georgia so he would be fresh for the much easier task of facing Moldova a few days later.

Nalz

debate, not hate!

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

So, as I said, it is clear that O'Neill has benched Wes in several important games as a tactical choice rather than just because of trying to keep him fresh.

Not always tactical, sometimes just in terms of personnel. Like when he played McGeady ahead of Wes in that number 10 type role away to Georgia.

Pro. F wrote: »

So, as I said, MON benched Wes against Georgia so he would be fresh for the much easier task of facing Moldova a few days later.

Moldova got on level terms with us and things looked a bit dodgy for a while. Moldova was away, Georgia was at home, not sure the Moldova task was much easier. We definitely played better as a team right from the start. Played with pace and intensity and pressed the play which made things easier.

ArmaniJeanss

Pro. F wrote: »

So, as I said, MON benched Wes against Georgia so he would be fresh for the much easier task of facing Moldova a few days later.

For what its worth the betting market saw them as equal tasks, we were around 1/2 for each game.

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

Not always tactical, sometimes just in terms of personnel. Like when he played McGeady ahead of Wes in that number 10 type role away to Georgia.

A personnel choice falls under tactical thinking as far as I'm concerned. You can call it a "tactical or personnel" choice if you prefer. The important bit is that it was a choice because of on field reasons and not a concern to keep Wes fresh.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Moldova got on level terms with us and things looked a bit dodgy for a while. Moldova was away, Georgia was at home, not sure the Moldova task was much easier. We definitely played better as a team right from the start. Played with pace and intensity and pressed the play which made things easier.

Well I'm not going to debate that particular one with you, so we can agree to disagree on it.

Pro. F

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

For what its worth the betting market saw them as equal tasks, we were around 1/2 for each game.

Not worth very much at all.

ArmaniJeanss

Pro. F wrote: »

Not worth very much at all.

Fair enough, just carry on then with one persons opinion of which was an easier task.

Pro. F

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fair enough, just carry on then with one persons opinion of which was an easier task.

lol

TheCitizen

Pro. F wrote: »

A personnel choice falls under tactical thinking as far as I'm concerned. You can call it a "tactical or personnel" choice if you prefer. The important bit is that it was a choice because of on field reasons and not a concern to keep Wes fresh.

I call that one a personnel choice, and there is a difference, because you can apply similar formations and tactics but with different personnel.

Pro. F wrote: »

Well I'm not going to debate that particular one with you, so we can agree to disagree on it.

I disagree to agree on it:pac:

Nalz

Pro. F wrote: »

lol

lmao #haha

Pro. F

TheCitizen wrote: »

I call that one a personnel choice, and there is a difference, because you can apply similar formations and tactics but with different personnel.

So, as I said, you can call that a personnel choice if you prefer. I'm certainly not going to debate that with you, because it's not important. The relevant issue, as far as this conversation is concerned, is that it was a choice because of on field reasons and not because of a concern to keep Wes fresh.

You can argue that benching one of our best players in important games (when fitness is not an issue) is getting the best out of him, but it's a daft argument.