Interesting article from The Guardian today on Martin O’Neill. Plenty of valid points in there but in an effort to convince I think the writer has strayed too far from the truth:
On Second Thoughts: Martin O’Neill
It’s not Martin O’Neill’s fault the media treat him like the messiah, but does the Villa manager really deserve such high levels of praise?
Scott Anthony
August 15, 2007 10:57 AM
Martin O’Neill is arguably the most highly praised manager of his generation. He’s passionate, hugely likeable and eccentric. He lectured Robbie Williams on live telly during the 1998 World Cup, and knows too much about the Yorkshire Ripper. But I’ve never bought the argument that because Peter Taylor and Micky Adams were unable to fill his boots he is - as is often argued - the new Brian Clough.
Forget comparisons with Ol’ Big Head: Martin O’Neill was definitely shaped by his tenure at Wycombe Wanderers way back in the early 1990s. Over a five-year period he turned an unremarkable non-league team that used to fill up its old ground by wheeling in patients from the then adjacent hospital, into an established league outfit. Indeed, I have relatives that still can - and do - bore for England, the UK, the European Union and the UN about Wycombe’s 4-1 demolition of Runcorn in the 1993 FA Trophy final. But, aside from that, it was at Wycombe that O’Neill first polished better-than-average triers such as Steve Guppy and similarly discovered the likes of Steve Claridge, Neil Lennon and Matt Elliott, players who would form the building blocks of his later career.
As you might expect of a manager whose temperamental preference is for the trier, it was also at Wycombe that O’Neill refined his tactical template. That’s “tactical” in inverted commas, because while O’Neill’s qualities as man-manager and motivator are evident, his “tactics” have rarely amounted to more than serving up a high-energy kick and rush, iced with a big-man-and-little-fella combo up front. Where Villa now have John Carew and Ashley Young, Celtic had Chris Sutton and Henrik Larsson, Leicester Emile Heskey and Tony Cottee.
It’s no surprise then that O’Neill’s successes have invariably involved grabbing poor to average teams, giving them a stern talking to, then wheeling them out to overachieve. O’Neill came to national prominence courtesy of Leicester’s run of League Cup final appearances in the late 90s and secured his status as England and Manchester United manager-elect by salvaging the mess Kenny Dalgish and John Barnes had left at Celtic.
But in the cold light of day, these successes can look rather modest, and his weaknesses rather more glaring.
The obvious criticism has been - to O’Neill’s fury - that he has never produced a team that you’d willingly pay to watch. Celtic huffed and puffed their way to trophies under O’Neill, but tellingly had no answer to Mourinho’s Porto when it came to perfecting a higher-level of scheming in the 2003 Uefa Cup final. Rangers’ fans taunted that O’Neill’s side were Leicester with Larsson, a put down that, like all the best insults, has more than a grain of truth to it. O’Neill was great at organising the talents he inherited, such as Stilian Petrov, Lubo Moravcik and Larsson, but rubbish at expanding them. O’Neill does workmanlike, and wants dependable. Juninho mystified him and he treated the Brazilian as shabbily as Grard Houllier mismanaged Jari Litmanen at Liverpool.
Indeed, Villa were simply painful to watch last season. Willing triers like Gabriel Agbonlahor predictably flourished, but they lacked the expansive verve needed to open up the Premier League’s legion of mediocre sides. Dogged defending saw them shin, scuff and set-piece their way to 17 draws. This says something for their character, but a fair bit more about their quality. Relegation was a distinct possibility until Patrik Berger was rescued from loan obscurity at Stoke and Villa embarked on a nine-match unbeaten run to close the season. Yes, it was an improvement on David O’Leary’s last campaign, but it did not match the much-criticised Irishman’s first. This season, O’Neill is putting his faith in Nigel Reo-Coker and Marlon Harewood; plus a change.
O’Neill’s limits as a manager had been evident previously. Norwich fans thought him limited; Foxes fans were restless even as he got them promoted; ridiculously, Wycombe supporters also questioned how far he could take them. The repeated brushes with fans and local media, as contrasted with the reverence he is afforded in the national media, are telling. O’Neill must have penned some of the most chippy programme notes ever written - he is simply astonished that people can question his effort, because he always tries so hard and cares so much - but his tactics are of the variety that prevent you from losing but make winning tricky. They are understandable at Wycombe and Leicester, but less than heroic at Celtic or at a Randy Lerner-backed Villa.
A good manager and an admirable man, it’s not O’Neill’s fault he his treated like the messiah by the media, despite the fact that his managerial record in England is little better than Steve McClaren’s (a 39.95% win ratio to McClaren’s 38.8%). The Premier League’s ridiculous financial disparities make a modern-day Clough impossible, but if his heir does exist, surely he couldn’t be seamlessly replaced by Gordon Strachan?
O’Neill as England and Manchester United manager-elect? After only one full season back in the Premier League, it already seems an absurdly old-fashioned sentiment.
Just some quick refutations:
- The “higher level of scheming” employed by Porto in the UEFA Cup Final involved plenty of diving and time wasting and resulted in a 3-2 win after extra time. It’s a little harsh to say O’Neill got found out tactically.
- The playing style in that UEFA Cup season was far from long-ball. In the last few weeks of the season in particular Celtic played spectacular football with Lambert, Maloney and Larsson in superb form.
- O’Neill never gets any credit for changing from 3-5-2 which was sensational in Scotland, but not good enough for Europe, to the more solid 4-4-2 which didn’t suit his style at the time but brought about continued European improvement.
- There isn’t a grain of truth to that “put down” that the writer quotes, and I’ve never heard it before.
- Juninho was shit by the time he came to Celtic. He’d done nothing in the EPL the previous season and did nothing with Celtic either. He didn’t deserve a place, it was nothing to do with not knowing what to do with him.
- Think it’s harsh on Agbonlahor to consign him to the tag of “willing trier.” Just because he has great pace doesn’t mean he doesn’t also have quality. I like what I’ve seen of him.
- I have serious difficulty in genuinely believing that Leicester and Wycombe fans had become disillusioned with him. It’s impossible to believe that Wycombe fans wondered how far he could take them - they didn’t expect to be brought anywhere.
- Strachan point is nonsense. Makes me think this is a Rangers fan having a go rather than anything. It has no relevance to the article. Why else would the only reference to Rangers in the article be their “taunts” of Celtic. This was the same Rangers that were thoroughly outclassed over the same period.
I do think he gets a reverence in the media that is possibly beyond normal but that’s because he’s affable, entertaining and has been overwhelmingly successful. He has had a modest start to his Villa career but he’s done plenty of rebuilding in fairness.
Post edited by: therock67, at: 2007/08/15 11:51
