Martin O'Neill

[Richard]

Seems that Sunderland's current form has nothing to do with the honeymoon period of any new manager, just that O'Neill is amazing.

Sounds about right!

How long was our Mcleish honeymoon?

[Richard]

Can't believe people are having a go at the way we played under MON or trying to argue that Pullis is a better manager.

There really is an agenda at play here.

So if you have a different opinion you must have "an agenda"? Grow up.

I'll thank you to not resort to insults

No people can have a different opinion as much as they like, and expect to demonstrate that opinion without being insulted.

However, there is clearly an anti MON stance on here which is trying to be defended in the faceof facts. A defence which is also reverting to saying Pullis is a better manager, clearly not taking into account the factsof the case

That for me is an agenda, not a difference of opinion.

[Mantis]

Can't believe people are having a go at the way we played under MON or trying to argue that Pullis is a better manager.

There really is an agenda at play here.

So if you have a different opinion you must have "an agenda"? Grow up.

I'll thank you to not resort to insults

No people can have a different opinion as much as they like, and expect to demonstrate that opinion without being insulted.

However, there is clearly an anti MON stance on here which is trying to be defended in the faceof facts. A defence which is also reverting to saying Pullis is a better manager, clearly not taking into account the factsof the case

That for me is an agenda, not a difference of opinion.

I think there is also a pro-MON stance on here, depending who you talk to.

I don't rate MON. That isn't a fact it's just my opinion. I didn't "revert" to saying Pulis is better, I just rate Pulis more. Please explain how rating one manager over another counts as having an agenda?

[Hanky]

why do people feel 6th was an amazing achievement?

Why do people think that 6th (3 times on the trot) was such a terrible failure?

We don't, we just don't think it's a huge success either. Let's face it, with the funds he had three 6th place finishes is about the bare minimum.

I think you're seriously underestimating the strength of the league, irrespective of the money spent. Everton didn't spend as much as us, but they had a really good team back then, a lot better than it is now.

We were competing against some good teams in that era of 08-10. I think competing is an important word as it sums up all that we aren't doing now (the Chelsea result aside). I really don't agree that it was the bare minimum. However I'd agree we should have finished higher in 2008-2009 when we were in pole position. We bottled it then.

[PauloBarnesi]

why do people feel 6th was an amazing achievement?

Why do people think that 6th (3 times on the trot) was such a terrible failure?

David Moyes probably would have done, as he looked down each year.

But then he was probably wondering what he could have achieved with the incredible backing that the bloke who could never get past him had.

3 consecutive 5th place finishes with incredibly low resources was the true achievement of that period.

And we should have gone for Moyes. Instead we got Houllier. And now McLeish.

[briny_ear]

Can't believe people are having a go at the way we played under MON or trying to argue that Pullis is a better manager.

There really is an agenda at play here.

So if you have a different opinion you must have "an agenda"? Grow up.

I'll thank you to not resort to insults

No people can have a different opinion as much as they like, and expect to demonstrate that opinion without being insulted.

However, there is clearly an anti MON stance on here which is trying to be defended in the faceof facts. A defence which is also reverting to saying Pullis is a better manager, clearly not taking into account the factsof the case

That for me is an agenda, not a difference of opinion.

I think there is also a pro-MON stance on here, depending who you talk to.

I don't rate MON. That isn't a fact it's just my opinion. I didn't "revert" to saying Pulis is better, I just rate Pulis more. Please explain how rating one manager over another counts as having an agenda?

Pulis has a far worse track record as a manager than MON, so the puzzle about exactly on what basis you rate him higher is still there.

[Richard]

Please explain how rating one manager over another counts as having an agenda?

When it is clearly the case that one is better, ie say Mourinho over Mcleish, then obviously no agenda.

In my opinion, however, when one person has been so anti Martin O'neill for a few years now , and continues to push that approach regardless of the facts even to the degree of saying a manager who has not achieved anything like MON has achieved is better than him, then that IN MY OPINION, is an agenda.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Yep, you've said you rate Pulis more but unless I've missed it, you haven't said why or explained why despite the facts you still believe Pulis is better?

Again, O'Neill has achieved everything Pulis has and a lot more.

[Big_John_10]

why do people feel 6th was an amazing achievement?

Why do people think that 6th (3 times on the trot) was such a terrible failure?

David Moyes probably would have done, as he looked down each year.

But then he was probably wondering what he could have achieved with the incredible backing that the bloke who could never get past him had.

3 consecutive 5th place finishes with incredibly low resources was the true achievement of that period.

Is anyone arguing that moyes isn't a good manager.

Funny how its just a few bitter villa fans that think he's shit.

Majority if the media, pundits and ex players seem to rate the guy quite highly.

Shame we've had to have 2 shit managers follow from him and watch him do well for another set of fans to enjoy.

[Mantis]

Yep, you've said you rate Pulis more but unless I've missed it, you haven't said why or explained why despite the facts you still believe Pulis is better?

Again, O'Neill has achieved everything Pulis has and a lot more.

Pulis has done wonders with Stoke. He's spent a bit but no where near as much as MON did with us. Tactically I think he's better than O'Neill (but that's not exactly hard) and as far as motivation goes I think they're on par. As I said, I don't think Pulis is great I just don't rate MON, which by the looks of things is a crime on these boards. So much for VT being anti-MON.

Please explain how rating one manager over another counts as having an agenda?

When it is clearly the case that one is better, ie say Mourinho over Mcleish, then obviously no agenda.

In my opinion, however, when one person has been so anti Martin O'neill for a few years now , and continues to push that approach regardless of the facts even to the degree of saying a manager who has not achieved anything like MON has achieved is better than him, then that IN MY OPINION, is an agenda.

Are you seriously comparing O'Neill and Pulis to Mourinho and McLeish? Really? :?

I'm sorry but that's absolutely ridiculous. If anything it's a case of you and a few others having a pro-MON agenda. If I said I rated MON over Moyes you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

[Zatman]

Seems that Sunderland's current form has nothing to do with the honeymoon period of any new manager, just that O'Neill is amazing.

Sounds about right!

How long was our Mcleish honeymoon?

fans have to help in teh honeymoon period and he never got any. BTW we went 7 league games unbeaten

[briny_ear]

why do people feel 6th was an amazing achievement?

Why do people think that 6th (3 times on the trot) was such a terrible failure?

David Moyes probably would have done, as he looked down each year.

But then he was probably wondering what he could have achieved with the incredible backing that the bloke who could never get past him had.

3 consecutive 5th place finishes with incredibly low resources was the true achievement of that period.

Maybe it would have been if he'd achieved it but he never has had three consecutive 5th placed finishes with Everton!

Everton finished below us in 2009-10, the season of our third consecutive 6th place. As did Liverpool. In that season, only Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Spurs and Man C were better than Villa.

I don't really feel the need to apologise for that performance.

EDIT

(None of that of course is to deny view that we should have gone for Moyes as manager after MON left. We don't really seem to have tried too hard. Shame.)

[PauloBarnesi]

Seems that Sunderland's current form has nothing to do with the honeymoon period of any new manager, just that O'Neill is amazing.

Sounds about right!

How long was our Mcleish honeymoon?

fans have to help in teh honeymoon period and he never got any. BTW we went 7 league games unbeaten

Thats clutching at straws isn’t it? The fans get behind the team, unless they play badly; they want the team to win whoever is the manager. The players just aren’t responding and that then follows through to the fans.

Of those seven league games; we drew at Fulham, beat Blackburn at home, drew at home against Wolves, drew away at Everton, drew at home at Newcastle, drew away at QPR, and then beat Wigan at home.

Thats 11 out of 21 points. Its ƒuc•ing ƒrustrating. Its even more so when the rubbish former manager of Aston Villa has 13 points out of 18 with a much harder run of games.

[Big_John_10]

If there was some way to go to every fan site for every team in the prem and set up a poll asking who they'd rather pullis or MON?

I'd be gobsmacked if the majority of fans for any club other than stoke voted for Pullis.

Its a ridiculous argument.

Sunderland are going to do well, their fans are happy.

We're going to do nothing, our fans are not happy.

That's not going to change because a handful of villa fans who never really liked MON still don't like him now.

[Richard]

I just don't rate MON, which by the looks of things is a crime on these boards. So much for VT being anti-MON.

Should it be anti MON?. It is not a crime to not rate the man, no one is saying that. But when people use , IMO, bad reasoning to justify a stance, or at least reasoning that should be challenged, then you should expect that challenge

Please explain how rating one manager over another counts as having an agenda?

When it is clearly the case that one is better, ie say Mourinho over Mcleish, then obviously no agenda.

Are you seriously comparing O'Neill and Pulis to Mourinho and McLeish? Really? :?

No obviously not. You asked a question saying "explain how rating one manager over another counts as having an agenda?" and I used those to explain to you a circumstance where rating one over another is not an agenda.

I'll give you another, I absolutely detest Redknapp, absolutely loathe the man. However I rate him more than I rate Moyes actually (trying to use a relative comparison), that is not having an agenda.

However if I were to say I rate Steve Bruce more than Redknapp, that would be me pushing my agenda.

Do you see?

[cbr600rr]

why do people feel 6th was an amazing achievement?

Why do people think that 6th (3 times on the trot) was such a terrible failure?

David Moyes probably would have done, as he looked down each year.

But then he was probably wondering what he could have achieved with the incredible backing that the bloke who could never get past him had.

3 consecutive 5th place finishes with incredibly low resources was the true achievement of that period.

And we should have gone for Moyes. Instead we got Houllier. And now McLeish.

the £ wasted on gh & am we should have prised dm away from everton..you buy cheap you buy twice randy!

[TheDrums]

And Sunderland fans now think Bent is coming back there "I'd have him back like", "WAHEH MEN". Haha.

What a silly bunch of bastards.

[blandy]

I read an article (not online) all about moneyball - the U.S. principle where coaches are analysed on their ability to affect results taking finance into account and that calculated that Pulis is the manager, who has got the best results with the least money of any manager.

It seems a reasonably fair-minded opinion to believe that he's an extremely good manager. To get Stoke promoted, keep them up easily and progress season by season, do well in Europe without plummeting at home, have an excellent home record in particular. There's a lot to commend him, despite the unattractive football.

[markavfc40]

Looking at Pulis's honours he has a division 3 runners up with Gillingham and a Championship runner up with Stoke. A highest top flight finish of 11th. He has been sacked on numerous occasions from clubs such as Gillingham, Bristol City, Portsmouth and Bournemouth. Am I missing something here on what makes this guy better than a manager who has a Football Conference win, two FA Trophies and a Div 3 Play off win with Wycombe, a Championship play off win, two League cup wins and four top 10 Premier League finishes with Leicester, three Scottish Premier League titles, three Scottish Cup Wins, One Scottish League Cup with Celtic and three top 6 Premier League finishes with Aston Villa. I think Pulis has done a good job at Stoke but I am genuinely bemused as to what makes Pulis the better manager.

[Richard]

It seems a reasonably fair-minded opinion to believe that he's an extremely good manager. To get Stoke promoted, keep them up easily and progress season by season, do well in Europe without plummeting at home, have an excellent home record in particular. There's a lot to commend him, despite the unattractive football.

I am not doubting he is a good manager, certianly I'd take him over our current delight, however tell me what he has done with Stoke that is better than what MON did with Leicester, for example.