Leicester's Greatest Ever Manager/Player

[sylofox]

Not been into the poll seems pointless manager MON player izzet will win.

People will vote on what they know MON yes player Izzet?

 

So Shilton Banks Worthington Weller Lineker and many other better players will not get a look in.

Wallington should get a shout and having seen Worthington onwards Walsh to me gets it every time.

Walsh did it over years he did not pop up when we were prem he served the club when we was shite too.

 

He was a force and the spirit of the club for years but being a defender he don't get the credit.

We missed him like Chelsea will miss Terry and he will never get the credit he deserves like Adams at Arsenal.

 

How much better would we look this season with a 26yr old walsh?

[The Blue Moon]

And how many people have seen the teams under those managers - how many are around who can remember the likes of Hodge? Pearson gets a lot of votes because he's one we've all seen the reign of. This site is quite a young one, the results will be skewed towards the more recent managers.

True. But if they don't know the club's history or willing to research it they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Bit like the general election only those with 5 A-C's should be entitled to vote.

[Bettsj2]

Not been into the poll seems pointless manager MON player izzet will win.

People will vote on what they know MON yes player Izzet?

So Shilton Banks Worthington Weller Lineker and many other better players will not get a look in.

Wallington should get a shout and having seen Worthington onwards Walsh to me gets it every time.

Walsh did it over years he did not pop up when we were prem he served the club when we was shite too.

He was a force and the spirit of the club for years but being a defender he don't get the credit.

We missed him like Chelsea will miss Terry and he will never get the credit he deserves like Adams at Arsenal.

How much better would we look this season with a 26yr old walsh?

This.

If we'd have gone up instead of Blackburn in the play offs before he got his injury, i'm convinced he'd have played for England. He was such a good defender back then and was deceivingly quick for a guy his size.

[David Hankey]

If you want an opinion from an older supporter, Matt Gillies must be up there as one of the best managers this Club has ever had.

 

What he achieved before the big money days with players playing on ploughed fields was absolutely amazing.

[The Doctor]

True. But if they don't know the club's history or willing to research it they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Bit like the general election only those with 5 A-C's should be entitled to vote.

Well no. Extend it to players - Arthur chandler was clearly one heck of a player, likewise Arthur rowley, but having only seen their stats, not their performances, I couldn't vote for them - the best player I've seen here is probably muzzy Izzet - he's probably not our best to those looking at just stats and history, but you can't really vote for something without having seen it first.

[fuchsntf]

Yes, I assume it's Kelly. And the guy was right, he did a perfectly respectable job. He turned us around in 06 and we had enough points to stay up when he left in 07.

And I wouldn't argue with Lineker either.

I would, however, argue with Gillies. I suppose his keeping us in the top flight back in 58 or 59 can be equated with O'Neill getting us promoted in 96 but resources at the club were not comparable to the shoestring budgets of the mid-90s. Back then, even though fans would pressure the Shipmans for more funds, we still broke a British transfer record. Could you have imagined us doing that under O'Neill?

It should also be added that, while O'Neill only attended training once or twice a week, Gillies would go missing for months on end. He wouldn't even attend games, and leave it all with Bert Johnson (I think). He wasn't even a manager in the sense that we understand nowadays.

In addition, the team yo-yo'd massively. They did make two FA Cup Finals when the Cup was almost of equal importance to the league, but they didn't win them. They looked like they might compete for a league once, but they didn't win it. And this was in a day when the league was far less exclusive than it is now, it was perfectly plausible for a side like Leicester are now to win it.

However, in the season when Gillies was forced out, we ended up getting relegated with a relatively well-resourced side. And the fans wanted him gone at the time.

O'Neill on the other hand won four straight top half finishes in an incredibly exclusive Premier League, with a very poorly resourced side. He very nearly broke even on signings. And he was feted at Leicester.

O'Neill was expected to get relegated and he not only kept us up, but massively exceeded expectations.

Even if we park expectations and promotions and finances to one side, what did the two managers actually win at Leicester? Gillies' team won a League Cup and nothing more. In the mid-90s the League Cup was taken more seriously than it is now, but in its formative years it was treated as a complete triviality and the final wasn't even played at Wembley. O'Neill's two trophies were a far greater achievement than Gillies' one.

In short, I don't know whether it's nostalgia or simply interesting for people to argue that someone other than O'Neill was our best boss (some people argue it was Willie Orr - I met a club history expert who explained to me in detail why this opinion was totally laughable - and it is; he wrecked one of our best ever teams and then his career fell apart in a corruption scandal), but I can say for sure that Gillies didn't come anywhere near him.

Totally disagree.Mat Gillies consilidated us as a Top division side, and could be argued began the modern revolution and solid tradition,o f city being a 1st division club.

The idea of 1-2 players being drifters, and not sticking to tradition shirt Nr. positions, which took other clubs a few more years to copy and use.Even foreign coaches came to see this small tweek of player positioning, tactics + movement

Got top players around Britain, either wanting to play for the foxes, or respecting the club.Top names came to city.++++++++Under Mat.G We were never a yo.yo club.

Like today they were the typical pro. n. contra.Arguments over the Manager.Some wanted him hung drawn and quatered, in giving 1st a certain G.Banks his chance, then G. Cross, Mcklintock,and Nish and then investing in, for me the best player next to K.Weller, to ever put on a city shirt..Davie Gibson, so also even then like now, shows that we fans have no eye for potential, skillfull players,or game tactics and positions/style.

Shankley changed and used his players differently after being impressed, with what he saw coming out of Filbert street.Famously saying if both teams could swap a couple of Players during the season, both teams would always be in the top 3, and later once said and repeated a couple of times if City and the Pool played each other every 2nd week or even once a month, Leicester would of been the European Champions.

Yes Mr Gillies in my eyes you will stay for a longtime 1 of the top 2 Managers at Leicester.

Mr Bloomfield 1 of the top 3, Mr O'Neil difficult to budge..top spot. Milne top 5.

Unluckiest for me Mr Adams.

Pearson, still serving, so I have no end thought on it, but imo sofar top 5-7, get us out of this years

relegation battle could hit top 4, but to me a good successfull manager upto now.

[shilton_fox]

Pearson 4th just shows you the kind of retards that voted. I like the guy but come on, achieved less than Micky Adams thus far (Micky had a team going out of business, Nigel had biggest budget in Championship).

Pearson should be 9th or 10th so far.

Absolute moron, the bloke rebuilt us from our lowest ebb in history, highest points total ever, the premier league is a different ball game now to the Micky Adams era

[inckley fox]

Totally disagree.Mat Gillies consilidated us as a Top division side, and could be argued began the modern revolution and solid tradition,o f city being a 1st division club.

The idea of 1-2 players being drifters, and not sticking to tradition shirt Nr. positions, which took other clubs a few more years to copy and use.Even foreign coaches came to see this small tweek of player positioning, tactics + movement

Got top players around Britain, either wanting to play for the foxes, or respecting the club.Top names came to city.++++++++Under Mat.G We were never a yo.yo club.

Like today they were the typical pro. n. contra.Arguments over the Manager.Some wanted him hung drawn and quatered, in giving 1st a certain G.Banks his chance, then G. Cross, Mcklintock,and Nish and then investing in, for me the best player next to K.Weller, to ever put on a city shirt..Davie Gibson, so also even then like now, shows that we fans have no eye for potential, skillfull players,or game tactics and positions/style.

Shankley changed and used his players differently after being impressed, with what he saw coming out of Filbert street.Famously saying if both teams could swap a couple of Players during the season, both teams would always be in the top 3, and later once said and repeated a couple of times if City and the Pool played each other every 2nd week or even once a month, Leicester would of been the European Champions.

Yes Mr Gillies in my eyes you will stay for a longtime 1 of the top 2 Managers at Leicester.

Mr Bloomfield 1 of the top 3, Mr O'Neil difficult to budge..top spot. Milne top 5.

Unluckiest for me Mr Adams.

Pearson, still serving, so I have no end thought on it, but imo sofar top 5-7, get us out of this years

relegation battle could hit top 4, but to me a good successfull manager upto now.

 

I wouldn't for one second wish to take away from what Matt Gillies achieved. I don't think the club he took over was a million miles from where we are now - a top flight club (we'd already come up and stayed up with the previous manager) which was severely struggling, and which - in its history - had come close to winning things without actually winning anything of note. It was only 17 or 18 seasons earlier that we'd been 2nd in the league, so I'm not sure he takes credit for establishing us as a top flight side for the first time in our history, but I do understand what you're saying.

 

I suppose this is why O'Neill is so important to us. He actually did win a couple of significant domestic trophies and had a side which consistently looked like it could compete for more. At the point at which Gillies took over, nobody could be said to have done this in our entire history.

 

And I'm aware that Gillies was a tactical innovator even if he took next to no interest in day-to-day coaching or man-management. All I'm saying is that O'Neill, by job description, was required to do a lot more of what we consider today to be a football manager's job.

 

And I also understand why you'd say that Adams was unlucky. But Levein was allowed to bring in younger players on longer term deals as soon as Adams left, which means that - in 2003 and 2004, after the embargo ended - Adams could have done the same, even with little in the way of funds available. The fact that he chose to bring in older players (and lots of them) on short-term deals created immense instability. The few seasons which followed his exit were the least successful in our history and he's the only manager we've ever had for which the average age of his squad was 30 years old, and not one of his signings was at the club three years later.

 

He was lucky, in a way, that he wasn't able to sign players in 2002. Because when he did get the green light he unleashed chaos. His subsequent career should serve as a reminder of his team-building limitations.

 

And Milne top five? To my mind he won one scrappy promotion, struggled for three years, and was still at the club in a major role when we went down, immediately before three of the most abject seasons in our history. I'd have thought O'Neill, Gillies, Bloomfield, Little, Hodge, Orr, Halliday, O'Farrell and Pearson might have done better than that.

[NewquayFox]

Bloomfield & Weller for me, what a great footballing side we had back then.....

[davieG]

Micky Adams article. 

[MHC]

Yes, I assume it's Kelly. And the guy was right, he did a perfectly respectable job. He turned us around in 06 and we had enough points to stay up when he left in 07.

And I wouldn't argue with Lineker either.

I would, however, argue with Gillies. I suppose his keeping us in the top flight back in 58 or 59 can be equated with O'Neill getting us promoted in 96 but resources at the club were not comparable to the shoestring budgets of the mid-90s. Back then, even though fans would pressure the Shipmans for more funds, we still broke a British transfer record. Could you have imagined us doing that under O'Neill?

It should also be added that, while O'Neill only attended training once or twice a week, Gillies would go missing for months on end. He wouldn't even attend games, and leave it all with Bert Johnson (I think). He wasn't even a manager in the sense that we understand nowadays.

In addition, the team yo-yo'd massively. They did make two FA Cup Finals when the Cup was almost of equal importance to the league, but they didn't win them. They looked like they might compete for a league once, but they didn't win it. And this was in a day when the league was far less exclusive than it is now, it was perfectly plausible for a side like Leicester are now to win it.

However, in the season when Gillies was forced out, we ended up getting relegated with a relatively well-resourced side. And the fans wanted him gone at the time.

O'Neill on the other hand won four straight top half finishes in an incredibly exclusive Premier League, with a very poorly resourced side. He very nearly broke even on signings. And he was feted at Leicester.

O'Neill was expected to get relegated and he not only kept us up, but massively exceeded expectations.

Even if we park expectations and promotions and finances to one side, what did the two managers actually win at Leicester? Gillies' team won a League Cup and nothing more. In the mid-90s the League Cup was taken more seriously than it is now, but in its formative years it was treated as a complete triviality and the final wasn't even played at Wembley. O'Neill's two trophies were a far greater achievement than Gillies' one.

In short, I don't know whether it's nostalgia or simply interesting for people to argue that someone other than O'Neill was our best boss (some people argue it was Willie Orr - I met a club history expert who explained to me in detail why this opinion was totally laughable - and it is; he wrecked one of our best ever teams and then his career fell apart in a corruption scandal), but I can say for sure that Gillies didn't come anywhere near him.

I'm only 26 mate so I wasn't around for the Gillies era but from what I have read (and I like to think I know my Leicester history well) we were a greater force under his leadership as opposed to the O'Neill era which I remember fondly. I read somewhere that Bill Shankley referred to Leicester under his leadership as the biggest threat to his Liverpool side at some point during the 60's and that's a massive achievement in my eyes. He brought European football to Leicester for the first time ever, I'd definitely class him and O'Neill as our greatest ever managers. I have read that Jimmy Bloomfield was a great manager for us too so that's my top three. If I was going to select three managers since I have been alive I would say O'Neill, Pearson and Little in that order.

[inckley fox]

I'm only 26 mate so I wasn't around for the Gillies era but from what I have read (and I like to think I know my Leicester history well) we were a greater force under his leadership as opposed to the O'Neill era which I remember fondly. I read somewhere that Bill Shankley referred to Leicester under his leadership as the biggest threat to his Liverpool side at some point during the 60's and that's a massive achievement in my eyes. He brought European football to Leicester for the first time ever, I'd definitely class him and O'Neill as our greatest ever managers. I have read that Jimmy Bloomfield was a great manager for us too so that's my top three. If I was going to select three managers since I have been alive I would say O'Neill, Pearson and Little in that order.

 

No, I'm not old enough to remember Gillies either, or Bloomfield for that matter. Much like you, it's based on speaking to people and reading up on the history.

 

But the finishes under Gillies, in a league of 24 teams, were 19th, 12th, 6th, 14th, 4th, 11th, 18th, 7th, 8th and 13th, then we were relegated in his final season, during which he quit. We played two FA Cup Finals under him, lost both, won a fledgling League Cup and missed out in the final of another.

 

So in terms of how we did in the FA Cup, we did better under Gillies, in terms of how high we finished up the table, we finished between 8th and 10th under O'Neill, and 4th and 19th under Gillies (I've omitted the relegation). So he wins out in the FA Cup, hits some higher highs in the league at a time when it was easier to, but his average league position is quite a bit lower than it was under MON.

 

But in terms of what we actually won, O'Neill's promotion and two League Cups, from a starting position of the second tier and in just four-and-a-half years, as opposed to over a decade, massively eclipses Gillies' single and - in those days - far less relevant League Cup. He came close to being a much more successful manager than O'Neill would be but in the end his achievements weren't nearly as great.

 

It's worth noting that there was much more mobility in those days in the league. During Gillies' reign Wolves, Burnley, Spurs, Ipswich, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City and Leeds were all Champions - nine teams in eleven years. During O'Neill's you had Manchester United and Arsenal. It was possible for a side like us to win it in the 60s, but in the whole history of the PL only - what - five teams have ever won it, in 23 years.

 

On top of that, we didn't assemble our side on a shoestring under Gillies. In fact, we broke a British transfer record.

 

So whether you measure it in terms of average league position, achievements, or success in the context of the game and recent history of the club, O'Neill comes out comfortably on top.

 

As for your choices, they're definitely the right ones. Of the 'further back' managers I think Gillies, Bloomfield, Orr came close to achieving some great things, and were clearly very good managers for their day, while Hodge, Halliday and O'Farrell seemed to do the work which preceded their success. But O'Neill is the one who stands out, so far at least. If we stay up this year and do a little better next year, as we hopefully will, then that might change.

[MHC]

No, I'm not old enough to remember Gillies either, or Bloomfield for that matter. Much like you, it's based on speaking to people and reading up on the history.

But the finishes under Gillies, in a league of 24 teams, were 19th, 12th, 6th, 14th, 4th, 11th, 18th, 7th, 8th and 13th, then we were relegated in his final season, during which he quit. We played two FA Cup Finals under him, lost both, won a fledgling League Cup and missed out in the final of another.

So in terms of how we did in the FA Cup, we did better under Gillies, in terms of how high we finished up the table, we finished between 8th and 10th under O'Neill, and 4th and 19th under Gillies (I've omitted the relegation). So he wins out in the FA Cup, hits some higher highs in the league at a time when it was easier to, but his average league position is quite a bit lower than it was under MON.

But in terms of what we actually won, O'Neill's promotion and two League Cups, from a starting position of the second tier and in just four-and-a-half years, as opposed to over a decade, massively eclipses Gillies' single and - in those days - far less relevant League Cup. He came close to being a much more successful manager than O'Neill would be but in the end his achievements weren't nearly as great.

It's worth noting that there was much more mobility in those days in the league. During Gillies' reign Wolves, Burnley, Spurs, Ipswich, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City and Leeds were all Champions - nine teams in eleven years. During O'Neill's you had Manchester United and Arsenal. It was possible for a side like us to win it in the 60s, but in the whole history of the PL only - what - five teams have ever won it, in 23 years.

On top of that, we didn't assemble our side on a shoestring under Gillies. In fact, we broke a British transfer record.

So whether you measure it in terms of average league position, achievements, or success in the context of the game and recent history of the club, O'Neill comes out comfortably on top.

As for your choices, they're definitely the right ones. Of the 'further back' managers I think Gillies, Bloomfield, Orr came close to achieving some great things, and were clearly very good managers for their day, while Hodge, Halliday and O'Farrell seemed to do the work which preceded their success. But O'Neill is the one who stands out, so far at least. If we stay up this year and do a little better next year, as we hopefully will, then that might change.

So your telling me I witnessed the greatest spell in our clubs history? Awesome.

[jambocat]

Gillies-Mon-J Wallace-B Little   for me tyvm