I guess I'm not sure I understand this. The inference seems to be:
1) Martin O'Neill is a good manager. 2) x, y, z are what ought to be done at Club A. 3) Since Martin O'Neill is a good manager, if he were at A, he would do x, y, z.
That seems a bit heavy handed. There are good managers on these sides already, and they did not do make these moves. Now, I think they can be wrong (I think Wenger was), but that is no reason to think O'Neill wouldn't do the same things.
What strategies for roster construction does he use that you can use to bolster the argument? What specific decisions has he made that would give some (any) reason to believe that Martin O'Neill would make these clubs better? What can we learn from Martin O'Neill's track record? That he is a good manager is obvious, and he joins a set of other good managers in the Premier League. I'm much more interested in what makes him different (and perhaps better), and that is the missing premise from this enthymeme.
Raatzie
· 11 months ago
Well put. And while we're at it, aren't David Moyes and Steve Bruce, like MON, doing more with less this year? Everton doesn't even have a striker.
Ian
· 11 months ago
Spot on jm. That is exactly the format that this article uses and it is a weak argument. Another issue here is that the expectations at a big club are entirely different. A part of the reason that big clubs have "flops" more often is that they have the spending power to actually sign high cost players. If Villa had the option to sign Shevchenko when Chelsea signed him, it's entirely possible they would have done the same.
Now I can't specifically address the comments regarding Arsenal and Chelsea because I feel less qualified to do so, but as for the Liverpool comments. I would like to point out that right now we are still at the top of the league, and we only have two players in our starting eleven that were not purchased by Rafa Benitez (Our own Gerrard and Carragher) and you can even go further than that. The only player in the squad at all other than those two that was around when Rafa Benitez arrived was Sami Hyypia.
I think it's silly to suggest say with any certainty that Martin O'Neill would have done any better considering that that is a COMPLETE overhaul of the club from top to bottom while maintaining excellence. Granted, he hasn't won the league (yet) but two champions league finals (one win) an FA cup and a community shield isn't so bad for a period of time when the man rebuilt the squad.
ls7
· 11 months ago
I think one thing that you did not touch on that has been fairly key is that O'Neill (despite having the cash to do so) has kept his squad numbers fairly low. This keeps fewer unhappy players in the ranks and the player's understanding of one another on the field is generally going to be better.
Chelsea have a tactical system that works...they were going along just fine when they were playing 5 in midfield (two pushed up high to support the striker) and Anelka was leading the line. Drogba returning has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works. You might say nice problem to have but I'm not so sure.
I noticed that Manchester United was not on the list. Is this because you feel that United could not be run any better than they currently are?
While I think he has done a very good job in the market, O'Neill has had some transfers that have not worked out -- Marlon Harewood and Wayne Routledge come to mind. One transfer that often gets overlooked is the purchase of Nigel Reo-Coker. While some might say the £8.5m they paid is a bit much, he is quite a versatile player and can cover 3 positions (RB, RM, CM). A good utility player that has probably saved them even more in transfers if they had to have separate players for all those areas. He has also worn the captain's armband on at least one occasion that I know of, so O'Neill must have a fair amount of regard for him.
Ross
· 11 months ago
I don't really understand the obsession w/ Martin O'Neill. Yes, he's obviously good, evidenced by the fact that his club has experienced great success (and some timely luck) in this first half of the season, but let's not go overboard. I used to think that EPL Talk was a good source of unbiased information, but I'm starting to believe that's not the case.
I also don't understand your part about Arsenal. Yes, its true, Arsenal could use a couple of big money signings, but this would run completely contrary to the club's business model, and probably would not be tolerated in the board room. Arsenal's executives have made it clear that while Champions League and EPL success are at the top of their list, the #1 priority is to be in the black at the end of every campaign, and they have been able to do both, up until this season, and still there are a lot of games left and they only trail AV by three points in the standings.
I think that this posting is a little over the top.
David
· 11 months ago
I think one of O'Neill's shrewdest signings has to be Carew - a straight swap for the average Baros. He's enjoying the best goalscoring period of his career and is heavily involved in the creation of goals, just like his strike partner Agbonlahor.
Auslander
· 11 months ago
I'm just addressing your comments about Benitez and Liverpool. Benitez has made many shrewd signings besides the ones you mention. Peter Crouch, Craig Bellamy and Momo Sissoko were all sold for Profit. Pepe Reina, Alvaro Arbeloa, Daniel Agger, Martin Skrtel and Javier Mascherano would all walk into the First 11 at Villa and could all be sold for profit.
All Comments
1) Martin O'Neill is a good manager.
2) x, y, z are what ought to be done at Club A.
3) Since Martin O'Neill is a good manager, if he were at A, he would do x, y, z.
That seems a bit heavy handed. There are good managers on these sides already, and they did not do make these moves. Now, I think they can be wrong (I think Wenger was), but that is no reason to think O'Neill wouldn't do the same things.
What strategies for roster construction does he use that you can use to bolster the argument? What specific decisions has he made that would give some (any) reason to believe that Martin O'Neill would make these clubs better? What can we learn from Martin O'Neill's track record? That he is a good manager is obvious, and he joins a set of other good managers in the Premier League. I'm much more interested in what makes him different (and perhaps better), and that is the missing premise from this enthymeme.
Now I can't specifically address the comments regarding Arsenal and Chelsea because I feel less qualified to do so, but as for the Liverpool comments. I would like to point out that right now we are still at the top of the league, and we only have two players in our starting eleven that were not purchased by Rafa Benitez (Our own Gerrard and Carragher) and you can even go further than that. The only player in the squad at all other than those two that was around when Rafa Benitez arrived was Sami Hyypia.
I think it's silly to suggest say with any certainty that Martin O'Neill would have done any better considering that that is a COMPLETE overhaul of the club from top to bottom while maintaining excellence. Granted, he hasn't won the league (yet) but two champions league finals (one win) an FA cup and a community shield isn't so bad for a period of time when the man rebuilt the squad.
Chelsea have a tactical system that works...they were going along just fine when they were playing 5 in midfield (two pushed up high to support the striker) and Anelka was leading the line. Drogba returning has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works. You might say nice problem to have but I'm not so sure.
I noticed that Manchester United was not on the list. Is this because you feel that United could not be run any better than they currently are?
While I think he has done a very good job in the market, O'Neill has had some transfers that have not worked out -- Marlon Harewood and Wayne Routledge come to mind. One transfer that often gets overlooked is the purchase of Nigel Reo-Coker. While some might say the £8.5m they paid is a bit much, he is quite a versatile player and can cover 3 positions (RB, RM, CM). A good utility player that has probably saved them even more in transfers if they had to have separate players for all those areas. He has also worn the captain's armband on at least one occasion that I know of, so O'Neill must have a fair amount of regard for him.
I also don't understand your part about Arsenal. Yes, its true, Arsenal could use a couple of big money signings, but this would run completely contrary to the club's business model, and probably would not be tolerated in the board room. Arsenal's executives have made it clear that while Champions League and EPL success are at the top of their list, the #1 priority is to be in the black at the end of every campaign, and they have been able to do both, up until this season, and still there are a lot of games left and they only trail AV by three points in the standings.
I think that this posting is a little over the top.