NafisaMartin O’Neill’s coaching methods have come under fresh scrutiny after former Republic of Ireland international James McClean revealed how the experienced manager’s old-school approach left younger players struggling to understand his methods.
The comments have emerged amid growing debate over Celtic’s tactical identity, with questions being raised about the team’s lack of control in certain matches this season.
Celtic captain Callum McGregor recently expressed concerns about the increasingly open nature of some performances, describing them as having a “basketball” feel. He also pointed towards the use of strikers in wide positions as part of the problems affecting the team’s overall balance.
Now, McClean has offered an insight into what it was like working under O’Neill, explaining that the manager’s approach to football was considerably different from the highly structured coaching environment many younger players had experienced.
And his recollection makes for particularly interesting reading as discussions continue over O’Neill’s tactical philosophy.
McClean reveals why younger players struggled under O’Neill
McClean was an important member of the Republic of Ireland squad that reached the last 16 of Euro 2016 under O’Neill.
However, reflecting on that period in his autobiography, the former winger explained that the changing profile of the squad created difficulties for players who were accustomed to receiving detailed tactical instructions.
He wrote:
“The problem was the new profile of the squad. The Euro 2016 team had an old-school core. It was a team of men.
“Martin wasn’t big on tactics. He would say the game hadn’t changed as much as people thought. It was still 11 versus 11, and he trusted good footballers to sort problems out on the pitch.
“But we had an influx of mainly Championship players into the group. Younger lads who had come through in an environment where they were heavily coached and had everything mapped out for them. Tactics, tactics, tactics.”
Those comments offer an insight into O’Neill’s managerial philosophy, which placed considerable responsibility on experienced footballers to make decisions and solve problems during matches.
Rather than relying on extensive tactical instructions, the former Celtic manager believed players should understand the game and use their footballing intelligence to respond to situations on the pitch.
However, that approach was not necessarily easy for everyone to adapt to.
‘What’s this? Why aren’t we doing more?’
McClean went further by explaining how some of the younger players struggled to understand why O’Neill was not providing the level of tactical detail they had become accustomed to.
He added:
“They couldn’t understand Martin’s way of doing things. It was like: ‘What’s this? Why aren’t we doing more?’
“They also weren’t as capable of handling criticism either.”
The comments suggest that the difference was not simply about formations or match preparation, but also about expectations and the relationship between players and their manager.
Younger footballers who had progressed through heavily structured coaching environments were accustomed to having specific instructions for different situations.
O’Neill, meanwhile, trusted his players to take greater responsibility once they crossed the touchline.
McClean’s recollections highlight the potential difficulties of bringing together footballers with very different experiences and expectations, particularly when a manager has a firmly established approach to the game.
Celtic’s tactical identity back under the spotlight
The revelations arrive at an interesting moment for Celtic, where questions have been raised about the team’s performances and tactical organisation.
McGregor’s recent comments about the “basketball” nature of certain matches have drawn attention to the need for greater control, particularly when Celtic are struggling to dictate the tempo.
The captain’s concerns also touched on the use of attacking players in unfamiliar wide positions, highlighting the difficulties the team can face when its structure becomes stretched.
O’Neill’s methods, as described by McClean, provide another angle to the discussion.
His preference for trusting experienced players to make decisions on the pitch contrasts with the detailed tactical coaching that has become increasingly common in modern football.
That does not automatically mean one approach is right and the other is wrong. However, McClean’s account demonstrates how a manager’s philosophy can produce a culture clash when the players are accustomed to something entirely different.
For Celtic supporters, the bigger question is whether the team can find the tactical balance required to control matches while still giving its footballers the freedom to express themselves.
McClean’s comments may have been based on his experiences with the Republic of Ireland, but they have inevitably brought renewed attention to O’Neill’s coaching philosophy at a time when Celtic’s tactical identity is already being debated.
Nafisa
