Why Martin O'Neill was better Celtic manager than Strachan

Its a pointless thread and not just this thread but all the other manager v manager threads.
How can we compair two people from two different times with different players and different funding.
One had larsson to name but one great player in the team,he also got around 18 million to spend in a time when epl top players were within our budget.
The other manager had to rebuild a whole team at a time when our past great players were leaving or had already left.
He also had less spending power regardless of how much cash he had to spend because the epl had moved on by then and was far more tougher place to shop for players.
Lets be honest the only reason this keeps coming up is because one is from ireland and one is from scotland.

 

All these stats meaning nothing. Trophies are what matter and both MON and WGS won trophies. No need to compare them, as they are both legends.

 

Both are IMO very successful Celtic Managers. Yes MON had more of a way with the fans and took us to Seville, but WGS gave us some brillant home games in Europe and 3IAR. Anyway Lennon will deliver the best of both.

 

Martin O'Neill will always be better than Strachan for me for one reason and one reason only. He gave me some of the most amazing and best footballing memories I've ever had. He will always be better than Strachan in my eyes for that reason alone.

 

Yeah I was also on a real downer after we beat Man Utd and then the European champions Milan.

 

exactly mate, both did great jobs and gave us some great times, got loads of respect for both

 

it has now been £5 million now cause of add on's

 

I dont think anyone can argue that WGS was better than MON, they idea that WGS had no money is a false one

 

Exactly, something we should be grateful for.

 

aye but he never inherited one of the clubs greatest players in Larsson and the genius of lubo, just stating not taking sides, i respect both of them

 

First guy I thought of when I saw this thread title was him.

I've had this argument on here so many times before so I'm just going to sit it out this time round.

 

Same, made my point and that's me.

 

Love both of them, but i think WGS had a tougher time.

Less money, didn't get the quality players when he arrived and a stupid amount of fans never backed him, and felt the need to slate him as shown by this tread
Despite this he still delivered incredible achievements and brought much silverware to Celtic

And he brought back Lenny :icon_mrgreen:

 

As far as I'm concerned there's no argument to be had - I'd take MON every single time.

But I can't be * with yet another MON vs Strachan debate and am just delighted that the man that will lead us forward is Neil Lennon.

 

i just hope were on this in a few years saying lenny is the best of them all, i can feel good times ahead

 

He spent just as much money as MON and did actually inherit a very good squad in hartson, sutton, petrov, balde, lennon and maloney. He also faced a much weaker rangers side

 

Yup I'm staying away from this one

 

When I seen this thread I instantaneously thought of Gunt

 

In the twilight years of their careers, by 2005 Hartson and Sutton had less than no pace, Gordon Strachan had to freshen our team up big time.

O'Neill inherited Henrik Larsson, Lubomir Moravcik, Stilian Petrov, Johan Mjallby and Paul Lambert. Far, far, far, far, far, far better than what Strachan inherited.

Martin O'Neill is definitely a better manager, but to dismiss Strachan, or say he had anywhere near as much money, or inherited anywhere near as good a squad as O'Neill, is not true.