Martin O'Neill

[OnlyOne]

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.

I've lurked their forum a few times in the past and they're hilarious. Their reactions are virtually nothing from stuff like "shit like"

[Zatman]

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

you know he got to an FA Cup final last year as well.

also comparing budgets Pulis 11th is better than MON 6th. SPL doesnt count for MON supporters as Eck outclassed him in Scotland on lesser budget

[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.

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.

.

O'Neill did wonders with Leicester, similar job and also won a couple trophies.

The money arguement would stand up if it actually meant something? :?

He has finished 12th, 11th, 13th with highest points total 47. That is a good achievement for Stoke but your point makes no sense because they haven't finished around each other.

If Pulis finished 7th with 60 points and O'Neill finished 6th with 62 points but Pulis spent £20 million less ...then the point becomes more meaningful.

However O'Neill finished 6th 3 times, and 3 times over 60 points .. in fact, Stoke's best season, finished with 47 points ...we finished 17 points above them. Now with the money spent, you'd probably expect that but I certainly wouldn't look at those results and go 'well Pulis has done a better job' that makes no sense.

Look at Pulis managerial records:

Pulis:

Bournemouth: 17th, 17th. (win 28.7%)

Gillingham - Promotion, did a good job. (43.52)

Bristol City - Pretty much hounded out, left after 6 months. (30.30)

Portsmouth - sacked after 6 months. (31.43)

Stoke - Avoided relegation, finished 11th and also sacked. (35.88)

Plymouth - mid table Championship. (30.77)

Stoke - Promotion and obviously 12th, 11th, 13th in Prem. (39.70)

Also reading his buys, £5.5 million for Dave Kitson, £3 million for Olofinjana, £2 million Sonko, £2.5 Million Faye, A.Davies, £1.5 million, Beattie £3.5 million etc...

in his first season he spent £25 million.

second season, £18 million, Whitehead for £5 million, Collins £2.5 million, Arismendi £2.5 million etc.

£10 million 3rd season.

£27 million this season.

So he has spent nearly £80 million on transfers since being at Stoke City and thus far best finish is 11th. He hasn't worked miracles.

O'Neill:

Wycombe - 5th, 2nd, promoted, promoted, just missed out on 3rd successive promotion, 2 fa trophies. (46.43)

Norwich - left down differences with chairman. (45.00)

Leicester - Promotion, finished 9th, 10th x2, 8th with Leicester ..won two league cups. (38.12)

Celtic - not comparable, scotland isn't competitive, stupid record like 75% win rate ..

Villa - obviously know what he done, record of (42.11)

Sunderland - 4 wins in last 6 ...more points and wins in his first 6 games than Sunderland managed previous 14.

These aren't opinions, these are their managerial records, facts ... how then people can't rate O'Neill or rate Pulis better, it just makes no sense. O'Neill hasn't failed at any of his jobs in management which is highly impressive.

[Mantis]

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?

There doesn't necessarily have to be an agenda involved to rate one manager more than the other. In the case of MON and Pulis, I do not think there is some sort of huge gulf in class there.

I don't rate MON, Richard. That's just my opinion and I'm not forcing it on anybody. There is no agenda. Get over it.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

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

you know he got to an FA Cup final last year as well.

also comparing budgets Pulis 11th is better than MON 6th. SPL doesnt count for MON supporters as Eck outclassed him in Scotland on lesser budget

Stoke have spent nearly £80 million since being in the Premiership.

O'Neill finished 6th in the Premiership after he spent around £25 million overall at the club. Obviously the league is weaker but given the money Stoke have spent, you could argue they should have done better.

Also like to add that you cannot compare which is the better job (even though I'd say 6th is anyway ..) because like people said O'Neill had a limit, maybe so does Pulis in terms of ever taking Stoke from mid-table to top 8.

O'Neill achieved more than Pulis with Leicester....the only comparable jobs IMO.

[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

you know he got to an FA Cup final last year as well.

also comparing budgets Pulis 11th is better than MON 6th. SPL doesnt count for MON supporters as Eck outclassed him in Scotland on lesser budget

Oh right. O'Neill got to a League Cup final with us like Pulis's FA Cup final though I didn't mention it. Pulis 11th with Stoke better than O'Neills 6th I don't agree and what I am sure off is that O'Neills 2 League Cup wins and 4 top 10 Premier League finishes with Leicester on a shoestring budget at a club that at the time had a 21k ground capacity was a remarkable achievement. It certainly completely blows out of the water anything Pulis has done at Stoke.

[Richard]

I don't rate MON, Richard. That's just my opinion and I'm not forcing it on anybody. There is no agenda. Get over it.

Dont think there is anything that I need to get over to be honest and I'm not sure why you are being so hostile.

I just think that a certain stance can cloud a judgement. And I accept that can happen the other way too by the way

[Mantis]

I don't rate MON, Richard. That's just my opinion and I'm not forcing it on anybody. There is no agenda. Get over it.

Dont think there is anything that I need to get over to be honest and I'm not sure why you are being so hostile.

I just think that a certain stance can cloud a judgement. And I accept that can happen the other way too by the way

I am absolutely fine with people rating O'Neill, despite the fact that I personally do not. What I am not fine with however is being accused of "having an agenda" just because I rate a manager you don't rate over a manager you do rate.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

I still don't get how you don't rate him to be fair. I can get why people would rate Pulis or wouldn't rate him ..I don't get it with O'Neill though, he's done a good job everywhere he's gone. I could see maybe why you wouldn't want him as a manager but it just cannot be denied that he's a good manager. Whatever job he's done, he's done a good job, limited funds or money to spend. all sizes of clubs.

[OnlyOne]

He didn't go a good enough job here. Not with the money he spent. He's too limited for the modern game. No club will win or achieve anything worthwhile under him anymore. Back in the 90's it suited managers like MON but not now.

[Mantis]

I still don't get how you don't rate him to be fair. I can get why people would rate Pulis or wouldn't rate him ..I don't get it with O'Neill though, he's done a good job everywhere he's gone. I could see maybe why you wouldn't want him as a manager but it just cannot be denied that he's a good manager. Whatever job he's done, he's done a good job, limited funds or money to spend. all sizes of clubs.

I just think he's too old fashioned and limited. He's an excellent motivator and an ok manager, I just don't think he's as good as the press and a lot of people on here think he is.

[briny_ear]

In the case of MON and Pulis, I do not think there is some sort of huge gulf in class there.

People have been flooding the past few pages with facts and figures demonstrating there is a big difference in class and you still haven't explained what you base your judgement on.

[Mantis]

In the case of MON and Pulis, I do not think there is some sort of huge gulf in class there.

People have been flooding the past few pages with facts and figures demonstrating there is a big difference in class and you still haven't explained what you base your judgement on.

Hardly.

I have actually.

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.

[briny_ear]

I don't think Pulis is great.

Well at least that brings us a little nearer reality.

We already know from posts immemorial that you don't rate MON and I doubt whether anything he could ever achieve would change that.

The sudden enthusiasm for Pulis did come as a bit of a shock.

[Mantis]

I don't think Pulis is great.

Well at least that brings us a little nearer reality.

We already know from posts immemorial that you don't rate MON and I doubt whether anything he could ever achieve would change that.

The sudden enthusiasm for Pulis did come as a bit of a shock.

Why would MON not be able to do anything to convince me? Just because I don't rate him now doesn't mean I won't in 5 years time.

It's not a sudden enthusiasm. I said I thought Pulis was better and then had to defend my point of view (and thus Pulis as well) after being jumped on for not rating St Martin.

[OnlyOne]

I think we can all agree MON is better than McLeish though.

[Mantis]

I think we can all agree MON is better than McLeish though.

Of course. Then again, find me someone who isn't?

[thetrees]

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.

Perspective, BJ10, perspective.

If MON's consecutive 6th place finishes are to be lauded, where does that put a man with a much lower wage bill, and a hugely less transfer budget, who consistently outperformed him?

I don't think that MON is a bad manager, I just think that his tactical knowledge is flawed and that his football is awful. I have also never wavered from the belief that he has a short shelf life, and wish that the Villa one had been a year shorter.

[blandy]

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, certainly 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.

My comment was made to counter a view that perhaps someone's opinion that Pulis is better than MO'N was an absurd view to hold. Personally I'd take MO'N, but I was just mentioning that the analysis done put Pulis at the top of the tree, in terms of achieving results with finance albeit it was done when MO'N was out of work. So as I say in terms of being a reasonable subjective view to hold (though not one I hold) it seems far from absurd to me. And directly on Leicester/Stoke, they certainly, from memory seem to have both over-achieved and stoke have done so in a climate where money is even more of a factor. They're both good managers, both have a style of play which works, but is ultimately limited and limiting, but they both get results.

The journey Pulis went through to get to be as good as he is now - learning from small jobs is part of what makes him good. Looking back to time at wherever a good while ago, for me, and claiming he wasn't all that, a decade ago is not really relevant to how good he is Now.

Hope that explains.

[CI]

so MON off to an absolute flyer, with a mediocre squad, wonder if he's wiser after his time at B6 or if he'll just fritter money away again