| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting 09:44 - Jun 21 with 4863 views | Macedonian_Gerrard |
Seen a lot of chatter in defence of Ashton/O'Neil online citing his 'record' especially at 'keeping up' Bournemouth & Wolves prior to his removal at both clubs, and thought it required a little bit of digging into......
At Bournemouth he was in charge from August 30th 2022 until his sacking on June 19th 2023 at the conclusion of the season; 292 days, 37 games in charge and securing 11 wins (in all competitions).
For that season they had the 3rd worst xG against at 65.9, below them only was Everton on 66.8 (conceding only 57 goals in reality thanks of course to Pickford, and Leeds on 67.5 who were ultimately relegated). They had the most amount of clearances per match at 25.6 indicating the backs to the wall/last gasp defending/low block style that characterises an O'Neil team, conceding the most set-piece goals at 21 (next highest Forest on 16), accumulated 50 'Big Chances' across the season (ranked 19th), generating 39.6 xG across the season - most importantly had an xG difference of -26.3 which was ranked 20th in the league that season.
The xG table had them rock bottom in 20th on just 34 points.
Of course as the old adage goes one might say this is merely 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' - though i think personally its important to point out that survival that season was not as a result of his coaching success or some sort of 'knowing how to survive' or 'relegation fighting' as is the narrative developing, but rather a statistical anomaly and it shouldnt be any wonder at the first opportunity the board chose to sack him.
Moving on to Wolves 494 days in charge between 28th November 2023 until dismissal on 15/12/2024.
For the full season of 2023/24 the xG table has Wolves in 17th and 41pts, success! Though this has to measured against the measly showings that season by Sheffield United (30pts), Luton (33pts), and Burnley (34pts). This is a Wolves team by the way that included Ait-Nouri, Nelson Semedo, Craig Dawson, Mario Lemina, Pedro Neto, Matheus Cunha, Pablo Sarabia, and Joao Gomes a reported squad cost of £340 million (for reference, ours was an estimated £126 million in 24/25 our relegation year).
Some further fun stats for that 23/24 season include Wolves having the 2nd highest fouls per game at 12.5, 2nd highest yellow card number at 100 (just below Chelsea's infamous 105), 19th in the touches in opposition box with 795 (only Sheff U, relegated, below with 694), 17th xG (only those below were the relegated sides).
I shan't bother to go into any detail about the ill-fated 24/25 season which is pretty well known to most given we occupied the same division, and the discussion on Wolves ill-discipline and generally awful performance's is regarded common knowledge. Of course interesting to note following the latest of his litany of head losses in interview he was sacked before Perreira came in and made them (at least for the rest of the season) look a totally different side staying up at a canter before the board chose to sell their 3 best players in Cunha, Ait-Nouri, and Strand-Larsen, 2 of whom being forwards who were replaced by Belgian League 'star' Arokadare (3 goals in 33, looking to be shipped off after a reported training ground bust up late season), and a panicked January move for Adam Armstrong.
All of this to be said, and it may be no shock, i am pretty downbeat on this appointment. I think the narrative about his ability to keep teams up completely misses the underlying statistics to those seasons, and skirts over some of the realities too given for example the woeful efforts from the promoted sides in attempting to stay up. I am stunned that this is the supposed result of Ashton's 'contingency planning' - an ex-budgie who he signed previously and has shown (imo) absolutely nothing thus far in his managerial career. We are a premier league arguably the best placed of the promoted 3 with a veritable war-chest behind us, was this job not appealing to the wider managerial market? did we even look?
Of course some will just tell me to suck it up and support the team/support the manager as it's ITFC but i would push back at that somewhat. We're not sycophants, the club/its decisions are not beyond reproach, we can criticise and state our opinions even if they are not blindly supportive and positive - thats the whole point of being a fan and if anything is important to do!! Goes without saying i hope and pray i'm wrong and it works out, but dear lord am i worried that this has done nothing to help our ambitions of remaining in the league next season.
|  | | |  |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 17:40 - Jun 21 with 824 views | bsw72 |
I don’t get what myths you are busting. He kept up Bournemouth and Wolves in two of his 3 seasons.
That’s a fact, not a myth.
Expected goals and all similar derived metrics are analytical constructs built on probability models, not factual outcomes, in football, only the scoreline, results and goal tallies are immutable facts which form the baseline for league positions. |  | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 17:48 - Jun 21 with 810 views | andyblue231 |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 17:40 - Jun 21 by bsw72 |
I don’t get what myths you are busting. He kept up Bournemouth and Wolves in two of his 3 seasons.
That’s a fact, not a myth.
Expected goals and all similar derived metrics are analytical constructs built on probability models, not factual outcomes, in football, only the scoreline, results and goal tallies are immutable facts which form the baseline for league positions. |
I think Because there is statistical variance over such a short time period. Underlying data gives you a more accurate picture. It is a wider range of numbers that are unlikely to be chance. All of the smaller clubs that have established themselves have done so by being data led.
After the league one promotion your model Would have predicted that Plymouth would be the better bet to get to the premier League.
The underlying data said it was us.
Why would you deny yourself access to the fuller set of information? |  | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 18:27 - Jun 21 with 761 views | bsw72 |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 17:48 - Jun 21 by andyblue231 |
I think Because there is statistical variance over such a short time period. Underlying data gives you a more accurate picture. It is a wider range of numbers that are unlikely to be chance. All of the smaller clubs that have established themselves have done so by being data led.
After the league one promotion your model Would have predicted that Plymouth would be the better bet to get to the premier League.
The underlying data said it was us.
Why would you deny yourself access to the fuller set of information? |
Ooh, data analytics, one of my fave topics.
The problem with that argument is retrospective reasoning. Saying "the underlying data said it was us" validates the data by the outcome rather than the outcome being predicted by the data. If the model genuinely predicted Ipswich over Plymouth, that is one data point, not proof that xG and similar metrics are superior truth-tellers.
The small sample size argument actually cuts both ways. Yes, statistical variance exists over a short period, but xG models are themselves built from historical data that may not reflect the specific conditions, squad, management or tactical approach of a particular club at a particular moment. Ipswich under McKenna were an anomaly by almost any measure, which is exactly the kind of situation where models built on historical norms are least reliable. The other consideration when people reference xG is which model they are actually using, as there is no single standardised version.
The practical consequence is that the same match can produce materially different xG figures depending on which model you consult, which rather undermines any claim that xG represents a more objective truth than the scoreline.
Football is also an exceptionally difficult sport to model statistically compared to individual or lower-variance sports. Twenty-two players with independent decision-making, officiating judgements that directly influence outcomes, weather conditions, pitch state and the cumulative effect of fixture congestion all introduce layers of variability that simply do not exist in the same way in athletics, tennis or even baseball, where statistical modelling has a far stronger predictive track record.
Nobody is denying access to a fuller set of information. The argument is about what constitutes fact and what constitutes inference. xG is a model output built on assumptions and estimates, it describes what should have happened, not what did. Treating it as more revealing than actual results inverts the relationship between evidence and interpretation.
The Plymouth comparison is also doing more rhetorical work than analytical work. One correct directional call does not validate everything a model produces, any more than one wrong call invalidates it. That is precisely the kind of selective reasoning that good statistical thinking is supposed to prevent. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 18:31 - Jun 21 with 748 views | BlueBlood90 |
The past is the past. it's a completely different team and I'm sure he's adapted as a coach since as well. The fact of the matter is we need to back him and judge him based on his record here. Whether that's good or bad only time will tell. |  |
| |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 18:32 - Jun 21 with 744 views | andyblue231 |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 18:27 - Jun 21 by bsw72 |
Ooh, data analytics, one of my fave topics.
The problem with that argument is retrospective reasoning. Saying "the underlying data said it was us" validates the data by the outcome rather than the outcome being predicted by the data. If the model genuinely predicted Ipswich over Plymouth, that is one data point, not proof that xG and similar metrics are superior truth-tellers.
The small sample size argument actually cuts both ways. Yes, statistical variance exists over a short period, but xG models are themselves built from historical data that may not reflect the specific conditions, squad, management or tactical approach of a particular club at a particular moment. Ipswich under McKenna were an anomaly by almost any measure, which is exactly the kind of situation where models built on historical norms are least reliable. The other consideration when people reference xG is which model they are actually using, as there is no single standardised version.
The practical consequence is that the same match can produce materially different xG figures depending on which model you consult, which rather undermines any claim that xG represents a more objective truth than the scoreline.
Football is also an exceptionally difficult sport to model statistically compared to individual or lower-variance sports. Twenty-two players with independent decision-making, officiating judgements that directly influence outcomes, weather conditions, pitch state and the cumulative effect of fixture congestion all introduce layers of variability that simply do not exist in the same way in athletics, tennis or even baseball, where statistical modelling has a far stronger predictive track record.
Nobody is denying access to a fuller set of information. The argument is about what constitutes fact and what constitutes inference. xG is a model output built on assumptions and estimates, it describes what should have happened, not what did. Treating it as more revealing than actual results inverts the relationship between evidence and interpretation.
The Plymouth comparison is also doing more rhetorical work than analytical work. One correct directional call does not validate everything a model produces, any more than one wrong call invalidates it. That is precisely the kind of selective reasoning that good statistical thinking is supposed to prevent. |
that's informative.
one question I've always had about XG is - if the XG figure is never the same as the actual 'goals scored' figure, doesn't at some point that mean that XG isn't to be trusted as a useful predictor? [Post edited 21 Jun 18:33]
| | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 18:52 - Jun 21 with 697 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 18:32 - Jun 21 by andyblue231 |
that's informative.
one question I've always had about XG is - if the XG figure is never the same as the actual 'goals scored' figure, doesn't at some point that mean that XG isn't to be trusted as a useful predictor? [Post edited 21 Jun 18:33]
|
xG is not only intended as a predictor It is a tool to try and understand what a team or player is doing well, and areas for improvement. This is one of the main objectives with statistical analysis of gameplay in modern sports science. How to improve the outcome of a given situation in future encounters. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 19:06 - Jun 21 with 678 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 18:32 - Jun 21 by andyblue231 |
that's informative.
one question I've always had about XG is - if the XG figure is never the same as the actual 'goals scored' figure, doesn't at some point that mean that XG isn't to be trusted as a useful predictor? [Post edited 21 Jun 18:33]
|
Not really, because it'd be unlikely that anyone would have a 100% record in a scenario where they'd be expected to score. And also, XG rates the quality of the chance on a sliding scale... there might be several difficult chances that all add a few percentage points to the overall XG score, but those individual chances still remain the same amount of difficult at the time. |  |
| |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 19:38 - Jun 21 with 652 views | armchaircritic59 |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 10:32 - Jun 21 by Cheltenham_Blue |
I'd love to read your critique of Kieran McKenna as a Premier League manager. |
I expect that's an issue many would prefer to duck in here and over on the site itself. Bournemouth did stay up in G O'N's first ever managerial season, we didn't, in Kieran's third. I offer that as a fact, not opinion or reliant on stats which are often used to try and play up a point of view, while ignoring anything that might point in another direction. And I say that as a fan and user of stats! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 20:57 - Jun 21 with 612 views | benrhyddingblue |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 11:10 - Jun 21 by andyblue231 |
It's not a cult it's a football forum. we can discuss things openly. what else is the point of this place. was else is the point of football? |
Yeah that’s correct if there is a discussion but there are some idiots continually posting that we should already be calling for O’Neil’s head based on a crystal ball they seem to have. That isn’t a discussion it’s just stupidity before players have been bought and sold, a ball being kicked and a manager appointed. Some of these idiots are the same ones who were calling for McKenna to be sacked the middle of last season. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 21:03 - Jun 21 with 607 views | andyblue231 |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 20:57 - Jun 21 by benrhyddingblue |
Yeah that’s correct if there is a discussion but there are some idiots continually posting that we should already be calling for O’Neil’s head based on a crystal ball they seem to have. That isn’t a discussion it’s just stupidity before players have been bought and sold, a ball being kicked and a manager appointed. Some of these idiots are the same ones who were calling for McKenna to be sacked the middle of last season. |
fair enough. I think anyone suggesting we don't give him a chance is being silly. im sure we'll all get behind him despite out misgivings. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 21:28 - Jun 21 with 570 views | Macedonian_Gerrard |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 10:32 - Jun 21 by Cheltenham_Blue |
I'd love to read your critique of Kieran McKenna as a Premier League manager. |
bit of a redundant question really as the point of the thread was not an in depth analysis of O'Neil as a 'Premier League manager' but rather seeking to address what i felt was a wilful misrepresentation of his record/the narrative developing (knows how to keep a team up) - the numbers suggest his teams were poor and were fortunate to survive and therefore just because they happened to survive the outcome bias of such success clouded reasonable judgment of the actual performance.
for what its worth though, mckenna has a body of work extending from a decade as a youth coach utlimately hand picked by jose mourinho to lead first team training at Man United on a season where they finished 2nd in the prem, before leading us to b2b promotions putting up incredible underlying numbers, and following relegation lead the rebuild of a team and importantly a stylist change as the league opposition viewed us as the dominant side with parachute payments holding much of the possession as opposed to previously where teams would step up on us expecting us to be weak allowing us space to counter and transition quickly as seen by some of the now famous moves leading to big goals e.g coventry at home and derby away. By comparison O'Neil was an assistant at Liverpool U23's for 6 moths before moving to Bournemouth as a coach for around 18 months until he was given the caretaker job and ultimately permanent (the rest of his tenures i've discussed already so will spare the repeat).
for my money there is not just a chasm but a gulf in experience (both in terms of time and the level/intensity of work), and most importantly success between the two in their overall bodies of work. in my opinion any hiring body would recognise that. I suppose too thats born out by reality that despite McKenna's premier league record as a manager he was reportedly a major target for Fulham this summer, a side on the precipice of European qualification and expected too to be in high demand should sackings occur mid-season if not waiting for the Celtic job come what may, and as far as we know nobody even blinked in the direction of O'Neil even in spite of the managerial merry-go-round that has taken place this summer except for us, a team expecting a fight against relegation and 17th being dreamland. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 22:21 - Jun 21 with 540 views | Vaughan8 |
How many home wins did O'Neil get during his Bournemouth and Wolves.
I'm guessing it was more than 1/19?
Did the teams stay up?
You can use stats for whatever outcome you want. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 23:44 - Jun 21 with 491 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 09:53 - Jun 21 by wkj |
Stats are relative, we shall have to see |
In the case of Norwich match attendance figures, stats are relative. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 06:13 - Jun 22 with 432 views | Churchman |
With regard to your second to last paragraph, are you suggesting that the CEO couldn’t be bothered and lazily picked up the dog and bone to an old mate? Do you think the owners would be happy with that or do you believe they didn’t have any interest or awareness, despite pumping £millions into the club? Who in the ‘wider managerial market’ available would have been your choice?
Anyway, on the 26th March you posted:
‘i'm part of a group of 4 and as things stand we're not going, pre-game pints of course as some things remain untainted by this affair. For us, either ashton goes or its a damn good apology and some form of action taken before we're back. ST renewal off the cards too for now, 13 years in but here we are.’
Given what has happened in the last three months in not meeting your criteria, I’m surprised you are so interested. I presume you and your three friends have not renewed your STs and will be doing something else on match days. |  | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Not a myth out there to bust on 07:45 - Jun 22 with 385 views | PioneerBlue |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 17:40 - Jun 21 by bsw72 |
I don’t get what myths you are busting. He kept up Bournemouth and Wolves in two of his 3 seasons.
That’s a fact, not a myth.
Expected goals and all similar derived metrics are analytical constructs built on probability models, not factual outcomes, in football, only the scoreline, results and goal tallies are immutable facts which form the baseline for league positions. |
🙂 it is not that folks prefer or dislike it is the monotonous repetition you have to experience in these threads to find something worth reading | |
| |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 08:57 - Jun 22 with 354 views | Macedonian_Gerrard |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 06:13 - Jun 22 by Churchman |
With regard to your second to last paragraph, are you suggesting that the CEO couldn’t be bothered and lazily picked up the dog and bone to an old mate? Do you think the owners would be happy with that or do you believe they didn’t have any interest or awareness, despite pumping £millions into the club? Who in the ‘wider managerial market’ available would have been your choice?
Anyway, on the 26th March you posted:
‘i'm part of a group of 4 and as things stand we're not going, pre-game pints of course as some things remain untainted by this affair. For us, either ashton goes or its a damn good apology and some form of action taken before we're back. ST renewal off the cards too for now, 13 years in but here we are.’
Given what has happened in the last three months in not meeting your criteria, I’m surprised you are so interested. I presume you and your three friends have not renewed your STs and will be doing something else on match days. |
well as has been much discussed (especially around Faragegate) with Ashton operating as CEO & Chairman there is a question on where the oversight sits since O'Leary's departure, especially with regards to the footballing sides of things. of course in reality i dont genuinely believe he's sat on his rear end and done naff all and just pulled up speed dial for O'Neil and offered him the job, however i think there is a significant juxtaposition between the statement 'we'll look at *all* markets' and per TWTD it was a 2 horse race between Mckenna's ex boss and friend OGS and someone Ashton previously worked with and has twice been sacked in the prem and is a known english football quantity in O'Neil.....
appreciate you taking the time to view my post history as if its some kind of gotcha moment, why is it a surprise that i'm so interested in the fortunes of my club which existed pre-ashton, will exist post-ashton, and is far more my club than his? | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 09:31 - Jun 22 with 333 views | ThatMuhrenCross |
I think just to be clear, no matter who we have as manager this season, our stats WILL be among the worst in the league. That's the very nature of being a newly promoted club, or one fighting relegation. |  |
| |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 10:58 - Jun 22 with 302 views | _CliveBaker_ |
At this level I think its unlikely to be the appointment of our next manager that has the biggest impact on our prospects this season. I'm more interested in what we do in the transfer market because as it stands right now we're miles short, regardless of the manager.
O'Neil isn't an appointment that really excites me tbh, but there is merit in it. He's kept 2 clubs up before in recent years, that needs to be our aim and we need to give him the tools to make that 3. The difference between having a go this season or not is more likely to be how effectively we spend the best part of £200m on 10 players than it is likely to be whether its O'Neil / McKenna / Dyche or anyone else managing us IMO. |  | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 11:16 - Jun 22 with 288 views | Churchman |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 08:57 - Jun 22 by Macedonian_Gerrard |
well as has been much discussed (especially around Faragegate) with Ashton operating as CEO & Chairman there is a question on where the oversight sits since O'Leary's departure, especially with regards to the footballing sides of things. of course in reality i dont genuinely believe he's sat on his rear end and done naff all and just pulled up speed dial for O'Neil and offered him the job, however i think there is a significant juxtaposition between the statement 'we'll look at *all* markets' and per TWTD it was a 2 horse race between Mckenna's ex boss and friend OGS and someone Ashton previously worked with and has twice been sacked in the prem and is a known english football quantity in O'Neil.....
appreciate you taking the time to view my post history as if its some kind of gotcha moment, why is it a surprise that i'm so interested in the fortunes of my club which existed pre-ashton, will exist post-ashton, and is far more my club than his? |
If you are questioning the oversight then you are questioning the competence of the owners. I suspect they maybe more involved this time around. But hey, as it’s somebody who has chucked in his season ticket but is far more your club than the owners, Ashton and the tea lady’s I’m sure the owners/investorswould appreciate being pointed in the right direction by you. | | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 11:18 - Jun 22 with 284 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 10:58 - Jun 22 by _CliveBaker_ |
At this level I think its unlikely to be the appointment of our next manager that has the biggest impact on our prospects this season. I'm more interested in what we do in the transfer market because as it stands right now we're miles short, regardless of the manager.
O'Neil isn't an appointment that really excites me tbh, but there is merit in it. He's kept 2 clubs up before in recent years, that needs to be our aim and we need to give him the tools to make that 3. The difference between having a go this season or not is more likely to be how effectively we spend the best part of £200m on 10 players than it is likely to be whether its O'Neil / McKenna / Dyche or anyone else managing us IMO. |
Spot on. |  |
| |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 11:39 - Jun 22 with 270 views | itfcjoe |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 08:57 - Jun 22 by Macedonian_Gerrard |
well as has been much discussed (especially around Faragegate) with Ashton operating as CEO & Chairman there is a question on where the oversight sits since O'Leary's departure, especially with regards to the footballing sides of things. of course in reality i dont genuinely believe he's sat on his rear end and done naff all and just pulled up speed dial for O'Neil and offered him the job, however i think there is a significant juxtaposition between the statement 'we'll look at *all* markets' and per TWTD it was a 2 horse race between Mckenna's ex boss and friend OGS and someone Ashton previously worked with and has twice been sacked in the prem and is a known english football quantity in O'Neil.....
appreciate you taking the time to view my post history as if its some kind of gotcha moment, why is it a surprise that i'm so interested in the fortunes of my club which existed pre-ashton, will exist post-ashton, and is far more my club than his? |
"per TWTD it was a 2 horse race between Mckenna's ex boss and friend OGS and someone Ashton previously worked with and has twice been sacked in the prem and is a known english football quantity in O'Neil.....
Just because something ends a 2 horse race, doesn't mean there wasn't a process to get to that point. It clearly didn't start as that |  |
| |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 11:58 - Jun 22 with 228 views | Leaky |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 17:48 - Jun 21 by andyblue231 |
I think Because there is statistical variance over such a short time period. Underlying data gives you a more accurate picture. It is a wider range of numbers that are unlikely to be chance. All of the smaller clubs that have established themselves have done so by being data led.
After the league one promotion your model Would have predicted that Plymouth would be the better bet to get to the premier League.
The underlying data said it was us.
Why would you deny yourself access to the fuller set of information? |
The only statistics that count is the League Table |  | | |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 12:05 - Jun 22 with 202 views | Radlett_blue |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 09:31 - Jun 22 by ThatMuhrenCross |
I think just to be clear, no matter who we have as manager this season, our stats WILL be among the worst in the league. That's the very nature of being a newly promoted club, or one fighting relegation. |
So how did Sunderland do so well last season? I scoffed when they seemed to fluke their way up through the play-off after finishing 24pts outside the top 2 & losing their last 5 League games, during which they scored a total of 1 goal.
Obviously they recruited well, but is Le Bris an exceptional coach? He arrived with a poor record at Lorient & no experience of English football. |  |
| |
| Have to disagree Clive… on 12:07 - Jun 22 with 187 views | unstableblue |
| Gary O'Neil - Mythbusting on 10:58 - Jun 22 by _CliveBaker_ |
At this level I think its unlikely to be the appointment of our next manager that has the biggest impact on our prospects this season. I'm more interested in what we do in the transfer market because as it stands right now we're miles short, regardless of the manager.
O'Neil isn't an appointment that really excites me tbh, but there is merit in it. He's kept 2 clubs up before in recent years, that needs to be our aim and we need to give him the tools to make that 3. The difference between having a go this season or not is more likely to be how effectively we spend the best part of £200m on 10 players than it is likely to be whether its O'Neil / McKenna / Dyche or anyone else managing us IMO. |
.. I do agree the transfer dealings will be crucial to survival
But you can’t disconnect that from the new manager
Firstly does O’Neil really create a draw for top players within the £200m spend - McKenna could attract, other candidates would attract
Also as the OP points out O’Neil was given a valuable and talented squad at Wolves and in that awful awful season (till his departure) where things literally fell apart - he had them on a relegation trajectory, that a better coach sorted
I hope I’m wrong but I think the OPs stats have real merit
And of course the fact he was replaced having valiantly kept Bournemouth is telling
BUT most importantly O’Neil has never executed a major transfer binge - which to your original point is what we need the new manager to drive |  |
| |
| Have to disagree Clive… on 12:11 - Jun 22 with 165 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
| Have to disagree Clive… on 12:07 - Jun 22 by unstableblue |
.. I do agree the transfer dealings will be crucial to survival
But you can’t disconnect that from the new manager
Firstly does O’Neil really create a draw for top players within the £200m spend - McKenna could attract, other candidates would attract
Also as the OP points out O’Neil was given a valuable and talented squad at Wolves and in that awful awful season (till his departure) where things literally fell apart - he had them on a relegation trajectory, that a better coach sorted
I hope I’m wrong but I think the OPs stats have real merit
And of course the fact he was replaced having valiantly kept Bournemouth is telling
BUT most importantly O’Neil has never executed a major transfer binge - which to your original point is what we need the new manager to drive |
"Firstly does O’Neil really create a draw for top players within the £200m spend - McKenna could attract, other candidates would attract"
The Premier League is the draw. Kieran Mckenna wasn't some huge name over Europe who would have had players queuing up to join Ipswich. Players werent joining Sunderland to play for Regis Le Bris. Players aren't joining Brentford to play for Keith Andrews.
The draw is the Premier League. We have to sell the project to people. We will pay good money, have a brand new world class facility opening, close to London, big fanbase etc etc. Im sure The fact that Gary O'Neil has managed players who went on to get big moves, Semenyo, Neto, Cunha etc will come up in that as well. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
