o'neill the messiah!

anyone else happy to see that villa are just as shit under the messiah that is o'neill as they were under o'leary?
personally i cant stand O'neill nor his tedious long ball tactics and am looking forward to him being exposed for the vastly over-rated manager that he is. Piss off back to scotland or the championship where you and your archiac tactics belong...
p.s. i dont like o'leary either: his nose makes him look like a peado.

He made some dubious signings in January.

Young was never worth £9m and since his signing they've been playing worse than better.

His refusal to give Steve davis a run of games is also bizarre and Maloney has so far been pap

To be honest, with all the 'hype' that surround Martin O'Neill, hes never really proven anything at the very highest level, he did superbly well with a limited Leicester squad, and took Celtic to the UEFA cup final, but tactically he appears lost when it comes to having some freedom with cash and quality players, i think if he can find the right balance between attacking and defending resolutely he could take Villa into the top half of the table.

Still some of his decision making as Tweedle has pointed out is quite dubious.

I would give him another 1 or even 2 seasons to see improvement ,I wont judge him earlier then that.

He's done alright with a small and very limited squad. Years of selling their best players and appointing dipshit managers have weakened Aston Villa and they lost Luke Moore earlier in the season when they were playing well. That hit their form and they haven't really recovered from that.

I don't know why Davis isn't getting played more. I agree with Tweeds on that one.

We should really give him time.

He only came into the job with one week until the new season and only a few weeks until the transfer window closed. He could hardly get together all his transfer targets and get most of them in that short space of time. January is a time when no one wants to let go of their players so thats why he slightly paid over the odds for the Watford lad.

This Summer he has a whole three months to get his squad together for a good season next year, so it would be more fair to judge him then.

His record in the past speaks for itself.

Cesc wrote:

His record in the past speaks for itself.

yeah, but he has never actually managed at the highest level with expectations before (sorry celtic fans, but you know its true... toss a coin: heads celtic win, tails rangers) and with a big fat wad of $$$ can he actually buy anyone apart from average, try-hard journeymen??

He couldnt lose at Leicester... my nan could win stuff with celtic... now he must prove that he can do it with pressure on his shoulders.

Cesc wrote:We should really give him time.

He only came into the job with one week until the new season and only a few weeks until the transfer window closed. He could hardly get together all his transfer targets and get most of them in that short space of time. January is a time when no one wants to let go of their players so thats why he slightly paid over the odds for the Watford lad.

This Summer he has a whole three months to get his squad together for a good season next year, so it would be more fair to judge him then.

His record in the past speaks for itself.

Ever the voice of reason Cesc. Agree

ih8gerrard wrote:yeah, but he has never actually managed at the highest level with expectations before (sorry celtic fans, but you know its true... toss a coin: heads celtic win, tails rangers)

It doesn't matter at which level he managed, the fact of the matter is that he surpassed expectations with the clubs that he has taken charge of. He took Wycombe Wanderers up through the English leagues. From then he took a very mediocre Leicester City team from the Old First Division to be a very respectable Premeirship side that would often get scalps against the bigger team. He also got to two League Cup Finals and winning one for his team. All this with a team that consisted of Elliot, Savage, Zagarakis, Heskey and Claridge. Yes fair enough it isn't exactly a competitive League up in Scotland but think of all those that failed previously Barnes, Venglos etc..... He still won many prizes up there and broke Rangers' domination up there.

ih8gerrard wrote:And with a big fat wad of $$$ can he actually buy anyone apart from average, try-hard journeymen??

No one knows his budget but we just assume it is big because of Lerner. O'Neill will sign the players he feels comfortable with and knows what they can do to get the results for him. He has been very good with budgets in the past.

ih8gerrard wrote:He couldnt lose at Leicester... my nan could win stuff with celtic... now he must prove that he can do it with pressure on his shoulders.

Of course he has to prove himself, doesn't anyone. He just deserves time to sort out his side. He inherited a dissorted team.

ok good points cesc... but 10M on young wouldnt fill me with confidence, nor would a truely dismal season but that isnt only his fault as it is his first season yet still im sure Villa fans thought martin messiah o'neill would get them higher in table than daivd o'dear-ly. Who according to Villa fans was the worst manager ever but i think after the same number of games last year villa were a point better off than they are now.

If he blows the best part of £30M on darren bent, neil lennon and emile heskey then we will know for sure!!!

Fair point. I think everyone has established that Young was priced a tad to high. But he has shown tremendous class thus far in his career and should go on to be a very good player. He is the best player for England Under 21's.

Given the start they had to their season everyone thought that they would push on for a respectable finish. It hasn't turned out that way, and it has gone very flat for them. There biggest problem is that they near enough have to play the same XI each week as they have a very thin squad thanks to O'Leary and Ellis. O'Neill was brought to Villa for the long term view under the new Lerner regime and will be given time to get results. Even if the League position is not much better than O'Leary's time, it doesn't matter as much now as they are showing potential and have shown on some occasions that they can play football. O'Neill is building and improving his team slowly and in a few years it will much better. Rome wasn't built in a day.

I think he will spend a bit in the Summer. Will probably get some of the relegated players from this season and rectify their careers.

Cesc wrote:Fair point. I think everyone has established that Young was priced a tad to high. But he has shown tremendous class thus far in his career and should go on to be a very good player. He is the best player for England Under 21's.

Given the start they had to their season everyone thought that they would push on for a respectable finish. It hasn't turned out that way, and it has gone very flat for them. There biggest problem is that they near enough have to play the same XI each week as they have a very thin squad thanks to O'Leary and Ellis. O'Neill was brought to Villa for the long term view under the new Lerner regime and will be given time to get results. Even if the League position is not much better than O'Leary's time, it doesn't matter as much now as they are showing potential and have shown on some occasions that they can play football. O'Neill is building and improving his team slowly and in a few years it will much better. Rome wasn't built in a day.

I think he will spend a bit in the Summer. Will probably get some of the relegated players from this season and rectify their careers.

couldn't say it better. it's absurd to start criticising o'neill now. he genuinely seems to be in it for the long haul and the general vibe about the club is more positive than any other time i've supported them, even if the league position isn't impressive. if there's no sign of progress by the end of next season, then maybe start to ask questions. this season was always going to be transitional. i think the best comparison is spurs when they got new owners...took them a couple of years, but they are far better now than they have been for a long time

with davis, he was playing earlier in the season, but was not the player he was last year. it would be hard to justify putting him in for petrov, even though petrov has not been spectacular so far.

Tweedle wrote:He made some dubious signings in January.

Young was never worth £9m and since his signing they've been playing worse than better.

His refusal to give Steve davis a run of games is also bizarre and Maloney has so far been pap

maloney has started 1 game. give him a chance.

as for the worse since january thing. considering we were something like 14 games without a win until janaury, this seems rather an odd comment. carew's started very well, seems well suited to the premiership. young hasn't excelled yet, but again, give him time. he's played 5 games in a new team.

ih8gerrard wrote:anyone else happy to see that villa are just as shit under the messiah that is o'neill as they were under o'leary?
personally i cant stand O'neill nor his tedious long ball tactics and am looking forward to him being exposed for the vastly over-rated manager that he is. Piss off back to scotland or the championship where you and your archiac tactics belong...
p.s. i dont like o'leary either: his nose makes him look like a peado.

whats this?
your english is ambiguous.who is O'neill ? who is o'leary?

Cking wrote:who is O'neill ? who is o'leary?

Ó Néill or Ua Néill, meaning 'grandson of Niall'. In past usage, it refers to an Irish kinship group based in Ulster descended from a family, the Uí Néill from which a number of High Kings of Ireland sprang in medieval times. The progenitor of the dynasty was Niall of the Nine Hostages (Niall Noigiallach), said to be High King and died c.450. The surname Ó Néill was taken from a descendant of his, Niall Glundubh (Niall Glúndub) of the Uí Néill, who was killed fighting the Danes in 919. Glundubh's grandchild and great-grandchildren would have being the first to use the surname. The O'Neill was the traditional title of the head of this family, and during early English rule the holder of this title was considered by many to be the rightful High King of Ireland. Today there are three ancient O'Neill dynasties or principalities (see Ó Neill Dynasty Today).

Denis Leary (born Denis Colin Leary on August 18, 1957) is an Golden Globe Award-nominated and Emmy Award-nominated American actor, comedian, writer and director. He is known for his often angry comedic style with a staunch libertarian viewpoint.

Glenn Hysén wrote:

Cking wrote:who is O'neill ? who is o'leary?

Ó Néill or Ua Néill, meaning 'grandson of Niall'. In past usage, it refers to an Irish kinship group based in Ulster descended from a family, the Uí Néill from which a number of High Kings of Ireland sprang in medieval times. The progenitor of the dynasty was Niall of the Nine Hostages (Niall Noigiallach), said to be High King and died c.450. The surname Ó Néill was taken from a descendant of his, Niall Glundubh (Niall Glúndub) of the Uí Néill, who was killed fighting the Danes in 919. Glundubh's grandchild and great-grandchildren would have being the first to use the surname. The O'Neill was the traditional title of the head of this family, and during early English rule the holder of this title was considered by many to be the rightful High King of Ireland. Today there are three ancient O'Neill dynasties or principalities (see Ó Neill Dynasty Today).

Denis Leary (born Denis Colin Leary on August 18, 1957) is an Golden Globe Award-nominated and Emmy Award-nominated American actor, comedian, writer and director. He is known for his often angry comedic style with a staunch libertarian viewpoint.

thanks,Gelnn,so spring means procreate offsprings?
O'Neill seems a great and ancient noble.
btw, why did you give me a go-by on MSN?
i want to hear the 100% pure english accent

Maloney has cost 1M I think and for that money he could prove to be a very good signing , Young was definately very expensive ,maybe near 5 6 m.

Christ the English are so fucking retarded when it comes to young players

Say Ashley Young was overpriced 2 years from now and people will laugh in your face.

Nice to see Man City fans slaughtering Samaras the other night too !

Maybe it will take anonymous performances from Rooney and Ronaldo against Roma to make people realise.

Samaras is pretty poor though it seems to be fair.....reminds me of Ricard.

borocooper wrote:Samaras is pretty poor though it seems to be fair.....reminds me of Ricard.

At 22 yeah but he has his moments.

so did Ricard

Samaras is decent.
he's just playing very poor ATM

if you want proof look at some of the goal he has got last season.
remember he's only 22

I quite like Samaras from the couple of games I've watched of him. Scores some nice goals too, but not enough of them. A typical Man City forward this season...

If he suddenly works out how to score simple goals then he'll become hot property. I dunno why Pearce paid 6 million for him.

Greek hype.

Ricard II

Cesc wrote:We should really give him time.

He only came into the job with one week until the new season and only a few weeks until the transfer window closed. He could hardly get together all his transfer targets and get most of them in that short space of time. January is a time when no one wants to let go of their players so thats why he slightly paid over the odds for the Watford lad.

This Summer he has a whole three months to get his squad together for a good season next year, so it would be more fair to judge him then.

I'd give him at least a year, if not a year and a half.

Samaras is a good talent, but always needed to develop. I've seen him in Heerenveen as well (then he got benched because of Huntelaar) but the lads got lots of potential.
He's got a 15 goal striker in him, but needs to be brought out.

Without sounding cyniacal, I don't think Man Citeh's the place for him, but I don't think Citeh's managed that well either. How can Pierce keep Damarcus Beasley on the bench? He's got a proper winger there!