L1Minus10 Posted 19 February, 2011 Posted 19 February, 2011 Schneiderlin reminds me very much of Oakley. Has bags of ability including the ability to frequently go missing in matches. With both players I felt that they should have done so much more going forward. Neither are your typical 'defensive midfeidler' and they spend/spent far too much time coasting through games. Oakley was a stalwart for many years and deserves respect for that but he always infuriated me, as Schneiderlin does - because he had the ability to do so much more than he actually did.
Thedelldays Posted 19 February, 2011 Posted 19 February, 2011 its odd...oakley did far more for saints than than say benali........yet benali is classed as a legend.. ???
The Majestic Channon Posted 19 February, 2011 Posted 19 February, 2011 its odd...oakley did far more for saints than than say benali........yet benali is classed as a legend.. ??? Benali-Southampton lad, one club man ( apart from a loan spell at forest) saints fan as a kid, had his faults but never gave less than 100% in any match, bleeds red and white Oakley-Was ok , nothing more. Jesus you know all this, if franny didn't fall out with cortese you would not have even asked the question.
squiggly_dan Posted 19 February, 2011 Posted 19 February, 2011 Remember reading an interview that said he is not a football supporter, and treated the game as no more than a profession. When everybody else was watching the 'big game' he would usually be out on the golf course. Should have been remembered as a Saints legend for always playing to his full potential and scoring the second-best goal I have seen against the skates (Marian's being top), but tarnished his reputation by being part of that gutless group that surrendered at Fratton Park.
benjii Posted 19 February, 2011 Posted 19 February, 2011 I cant see it with Oakley, never really rated him. Nowhere near good enough for England and people who say he was are just looking through their red and white glasses.Just a journeyman run of the mill Premiership player. Would not make the top 10 of midfielders we've had in the past 40 years. Looked like a little boy lost in the 4-1 at fratton. Maybe something to do with dinlo Redknapp sticking him on the left wing. Mental decision.
Badger Posted 19 February, 2011 Posted 19 February, 2011 Benali-Southampton lad, one club man ( apart from a loan spell at forest) saints fan as a kid, had his faults but never gave less than 100% in any match, bleeds red and white Oakley-Was ok , nothing more. Jesus you know all this, if franny didn't fall out with cortese you would not have even asked the question. We could not give Benali away, the fact is when he was on a free there were no takers. Yet many wish to see him in the same light as MLT who could have chosen a club to play for. Oakley contributed more to the team - guile and passing ability - when he played than Benali. I do agree with above comment from someone above, that like Schneidrlin now, you always felt Oakley could have sometimes raised his game to another level.
benjii Posted 19 February, 2011 Posted 19 February, 2011 Benali-Southampton lad, one club man ( apart from a loan spell at forest) saints fan as a kid, had his faults but never gave less than 100% in any match, bleeds red and white Oakley-Was ok , nothing more. Jesus you know all this, if franny didn't fall out with cortese you would not have even asked the question. It's an interesting point though. Oakley is a far far better player than Franny and was with Saints for ages. He seemed like quite a middle class sort of lad which maybe didn't sit easily with the blinkered world view of a lot of "safamptin till oi die" punters.
Badger Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 It's an interesting point though. Oakley is a far far better player than Franny and was with Saints for ages. He seemed like quite a middle class sort of lad which maybe didn't sit easily with the blinkered world view of a lot of "safamptin till oi die" punters. No coincidence either that both Souness and Hoddle wanted to show Benali the door, yet Dave Jones whilst in a cash strapped club kept him.
thesaint sfc Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Over-Rated by most because he was loyal IMO. I'd most certainly take him back, but saying he can hold his own in the Prem is a load of sh*t IMO.
Faz Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Maybe I'm old and suffering memory problems, but my recollection of him was a a technically gifted player, and in his prime under WGS was the lynch-pin in our most successful period. He hardly ever gave the ball away. That Matt Oakley would have graced any team outside the top 4, and walk into this one. He was always selected by Souness, Hoddle, Jones and WGS who are all better judges than anyone on here. He suffered a bad injury which co-incided with our fall from grace (or was it a co-incidence?). In the 4-1 surrender, my memory was that he came on as a sub - a comeback from injury -and was played wide right. He got involved which was more than the other gutless lot did - sadly that is a bad memory I'll never forgive or forget.
Thedelldays Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Over-Rated by most because he was loyal IMO. I'd most certainly take him back, but saying he can hold his own in the Prem is a load of sh*t IMO. But he did hold his own in the prem... For years
70's Mike Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 We could not give Benali away, the fact is when he was on a free there were no takers. Yet many wish to see him in the same light as MLT who could have chosen a club to play for. Oakley contributed more to the team - guile and passing ability - when he played than Benali. I do agree with above comment from someone above, that like Schneidrlin now, you always felt Oakley could have sometimes raised his game to another level. Slightly unfair to Benali There is more to winning football matches than guile and passing, shot blocking,tackling, heading of the line, without the likes of Benali and Dodd doing that many of MLT's goals would have still not earned us points, Sometimes in the beautiful game some players have to do the ugly jobs
david in sweden Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 I cant see it with Oakley, never really rated him. Looked like a little boy lost in the 4-1 at fratton. Yes but he wasan't the only one -was he ?
david in sweden Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 One year contract for Matt and three years for Pullis? yes that was another masterpiece of dealing - wasn't it?
Tamesaint Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Remember reading an interview that said he is not a football supporter, and treated the game as no more than a profession. When everybody else was watching the 'big game' he would usually be out on the golf course. Should have been remembered as a Saints legend for always playing to his full potential and scoring the second-best goal I have seen against the skates (Marian's being top), but tarnished his reputation by being part of that gutless group that surrendered at Fratton Park. I will not forget his interview on Sky Sports after Derby beat us in the play offs penalty shoot out. At the time when his manager , the poisoned dwarf Billy Davies was running round clebrating, Matt appeared to be in a state of shock. He looked as gutted as I was feeling at that time.
sidthesquid Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Three thoughts reading all the above - 1. I am pleased that the majority, like me, think he was an outstanding player for us 2. Playing in the central midfielder role always seems to attract flack from a certain type of fan (probably those who never actually played football). Think Magilton and currently Dean Hammond to name but two. When they are playing well the team functions without you noticing them. When they are off the whole team stutters, and when they are injured you appreciate how important they really are. Is it any co-incidence that he only managed 6 starts in our relegation year? 3. Just one more reminder how much blame Burley and his incompetence must carry for our fall from grace.
sidthesquid Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 To answer the original question - no he was not an enigma, he was a very talented footballer who has played over 500 games in the top two flights. The enigma is why a certain minority of Saints fans didn't appreciate just how good he was.
Graffito Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 I don't think he was an enigma, he was quite clearly an excellent midfield player. I think this comment in the OP is pertinent (Oakley)"...was one of those players who was never noticed until he wasn’t there". I remember a pre season friendly at the Dell against a Spanish side, could have been Real Sociedad. Disjointed performance by Saints until Oakley came off the bench and everything knit together. He's the kind of continuity player all sides benefit from but who possibly was never fully appreciated.
um pahars Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 I remember a pre season friendly at the Dell against a Spanish side, could have been Real Sociedad. Disjointed performance by Saints until Oakley came off the bench and everything knit together. Although I like Oakley as a person and as a player, I would have to say that I think the turnaround in fortunes that day against Espanyol was probably more down to their manager and a few kind words suggesting that going in 4-0 up in a game celebrating the opening of the opponents new ground might not be what the locals came to see!!!!!! They definitely took their foot off the gas in the second half!!!!!
niceandfriendly Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Very important player for us. It was Malcolm Christie IIRC who crocked him during our relegation season, whilst playing for Boro. I remember it clearly because it completely ****ed our season. He was a big miss.
benjii Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Although, let's face it, relegation was entirely Rupert Lowe's fault.
Graffito Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Although I like Oakley as a person and as a player, I would have to say that I think the turnaround in fortunes that day against Espanyol was probably more down to their manager and a few kind words suggesting that going in 4-0 up in a game celebrating the opening of the opponents new ground might not be what the locals came to see!!!!!! They definitely took their foot off the gas in the second half!!!!! I expect you're right about that game, I wasn't there. I was referring to a pre-season friendly at the Dell against Real Sociedad.
Leicestersaint Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 George Burley does have a lot to answer for.
Thedelldays Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Although, let's face it, relegation was entirely Rupert Lowe's fault. agree..the moment we got sturrock in...we were proper "fuk'd"
Clifford Nelson Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 I can't say that I have read every post in this thread, but I remember clearly two criticisms which were frequently repeated. Firstly, that he didn't score enough goals, and secondly, that he never seemed to command the midfield. He wasn't the star of the midfield which we kept hoping for, and whilst always competent we kept hoping for another midfield signing who we could really admire instead of only accept. Oakley was a decent chap who kept piranhas and wrote a column in the Echo. His only problem, probably, was not to be as colourful as we would have wanted.
um pahars Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 I expect you're right about that game, I wasn't there. I was referring to a pre-season friendly at the Dell against Real Sociedad. My bad. Terribly sorry!!!!!!! Just have that Espanyol game engrained on my brain as not the best way to start a new legacy!!!!!! (PS the Sociedad game was Aug 2000 - alost 2-1 as per ITN, but have to say I can't remember it at all!!! Holiday??? Cricket???)
benjii Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Didn't MLT score a couple of beauties in the Sociedad game? Am I thinking of the right match?
benjii Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 I can't say that I have read every post in this thread, but I remember clearly two criticisms which were frequently repeated. Firstly, that he didn't score enough goals, and secondly, that he never seemed to command the midfield. He wasn't the star of the midfield which we kept hoping for, and whilst always competent we kept hoping for another midfield signing who we could really admire instead of only accept. Oakley was a decent chap who kept piranhas and wrote a column in the Echo. His only problem, probably, was not to be as colourful as we would have wanted. That first paragraph is very harsh. The signing you are talking about was: Prutton, Svensson, Delap etc.. and they all turned out to be pretty carp. Oakley would always be selected ahead of them by a competent manager.
um pahars Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 That first paragraph is very harsh. The signing you are talking about was: Prutton, Svensson, Delap etc.. and they all turned out to be pretty carp. Oakley would always be selected ahead of them by a competent manager. Have I got too high expectations (or were they too hyped up), but I just can't help but think that none of those you mentioned (+ Oakley) ever lived up to my initial expectations. Prutton certainly never lived up to the U-21 starlet hype, Svensson showed what he could do but never did it consistently and Delap, well he had a long throw in return for being our record signing!!!
NY Saint Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Yep He and Morgan are similar Exactly what I thought when watching the United game when he gave the ball away a couple of times but he also positively influenced the shape in midfield and helped set the tempo of our build up and attack. As I rarely get to watch our games, I often catch myself making comparisons to Saints teams and players I was able to see. Excited to see us in May - hoping to get to the Walsall game. Wish we had another Shilton...
Saint Luke Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Always look for his name in the championship section of the football league programme, he was good for us and George was wrong!
Badger Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Always look for his name in the championship section of the football league programme, he was good for us and George was wrong! Simple fact is that since he left Saints, he has captained two promotion winning teams.
saintfully Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 Good player, good attitude, unfussy but effective - and occassionally scored a belter. I agree with the comparisons with Morgan.
sammysaint Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 he has a great surname and was also a great player didn't score loads of goals but scored important ones vs pompey and millwall and worked his socks off rarely making a mistake playing the simple ball rather then gerrard style long balls. IMO at the time Lampard and Gerrard were the only english CM players that were better then him during 2002/3 pior to his injury he was on the verge of a call up to england squad for a friendly. for the record i thought that season him and nolan should of been englands back up choices.
Roger Posted 20 February, 2011 Posted 20 February, 2011 For me magilton was better. His range of passing was better and he scored goals. Like vs pompey in 96 twice! Think he scored 7 in one season. Oakley was average for me.
saint1977 Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 It depended who was manager. Oakley was openly challenged about his fitness levels by both Souness and WGS and under WGS he really blossomed and ran many of the games in the latter half of 01/02 and 02/03. His injury v Boro cost us dearly as he was never the same player after although still good. He did disappear sometimes when our backs were against the wall but again, I think this was fitness-related rather than Matt as a person. Good passing range and whilst not prolific on the goal front they were worth waiting for: Skates home, Palace away, Millwall away, Derby home, Norwich home, Hull home (MLT-flick up and volley free kick). Better management would have got more out of an already able player and Gray/Wigley/Burley did him damage in that respect - look how much more Derby and Leicester got out of him post-injury.
Roger Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 Morgan had more technical ability imo. However, oakley was in premier league so maybe unfair comparison.
(not THE) Kevin Moore Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 Never rated him, and extremely p*ssed to read that he has stayed fit since leaving, which along with other persistent treatment table blockers like Powell and Idiotkez leaves me wondering if we had a medical/physio team back in the Burley days that had a f**king clue about what they were doing Now there's a surprise, I thought Oakley was a classy player personally, not spectacular but a good passer, read the game well (both defensively and offensively). My abiding memory of him was a pre-season friendly up at the Madjeski, the ball was whipped in (from a corner I think) it was a rubbish, overhit cross and I was describing it as such when Oakley somehow wrapped his foot around it and volleyed it into the top corner. It was a ridiculously good shot, and the reading fans afterwards were asking who the hell he was.
Teddy Nutkins Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 Fwiw i thought he was a decent player who strolled around the midfield, linking play and breaking up opposition attacks, but never had that extra yard of pace to make him into something special. Highly regarded by Glen Hoddle, you'll be pleased to know, Dalek.
Clifford Nelson Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 That first paragraph is very harsh. The signing you are talking about was: Prutton, Svensson, Delap etc.. and they all turned out to be pretty carp. Oakley would always be selected ahead of them by a competent manager. I think I referred to the frequent criticisms at the time, so hardly harsh. The other signings you're mentioning didn't meet our expectations either, although Svensson played internationally for Sweden up till last year and Delap still plies his trade regularly in the Premiership. However, none of the above where an out and out leader in the midfield. It might well be that we are asking for something which is very rare, and which costs an awful lot of money.
Blandford saint Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 It was Chris Waddle who was saying Oaks should have been called up for England, so no bias there. I remember him being rested in the thrashing away v Arsenal before the cup final - the midfield just didn't function the same without him. Why is it often the most loyal players who get treated badly? Unbelievable the comparison between the way he was treated and some of the idiots who replaced him.
um pahars Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 It might well be that we are asking for something which is very rare, and which costs an awful lot of money. I did put a caveat on my "perhaps they didn't live up to my earlier expectations" and you could well be right in that a real quality Premiership centre midfielder is a fairly rare commodity and also given the economics of football hardly likely to be with us for long if they were that good!!!!
kpturner Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 Why the past tense? Has he retired? And isn't it Nebuchadnezzar Wines
Clifford Nelson Posted 21 February, 2011 Posted 21 February, 2011 I did put a caveat on my "perhaps they didn't live up to my earlier expectations" and you could well be right in that a real quality Premiership centre midfielder is a fairly rare commodity and also given the economics of football hardly likely to be with us for long if they were that good!!!! I think Blandford Saints post above yours makes a lot of sense. Looking at Oakley's replacements he suddenly looks very much better than maybe we thought he was at the time. I always thought he was OK, and he was nothing like a whipping boy amongst the fans, but I know that there were many fans who didn't rate him highly. At the moment I think we can count ourselves lucky with Hammond/Morgan and Chaplow. Not many teams have got a midfield like that before you start touching the heights of the PL.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 21 February, 2011 Author Posted 21 February, 2011 Why the past tense? Has he retired? And isn't it Nebuchadnezzar Wines Indeed it is Nebuchadnezzar - thanks for pointing out my error. Interesting the varied views on Oakley.
AndyNorthernSaints Posted 22 February, 2011 Posted 22 February, 2011 I cant see it with Oakley, never really rated him. Nowhere near good enough for England and people who say he was are just looking through their red and white glasses.Just a journeyman run of the mill Premiership player. Would not make the top 10 of midfielders we've had in the past 40 years. Looked like a little boy lost in the 4-1 at fratton. Agree. I was at Goddison to see him come on sub for his debut and saw him plenty of times over the year as well as the pathetic display from the whole team inlcuding him at Fratton Park. He had plenty of decent games and was an important part of the cup final team that finished 8th in the prem but too many times especially away games i saw he went missing and i also witnessed bottling of 50/50 tackles in those games. As said average prem player in his prime but never more than that and no way near Englad class unless Graham Taylor was manager with the likes of Carlton Palmer, Andy Sinton, Andy Gray etc playing.
TheCholulaKid Posted 22 February, 2011 Posted 22 February, 2011 Always rated him but he needed the rest to perform to have a good game' date=' rarely was he outstanding when we lost, could not turn a game around like really great midfield players[/quote'] This. Spent many years building up to one consistently good season and then got injured. Shame.
Deano6 Posted 22 February, 2011 Posted 22 February, 2011 I saw him many times - I would describe him as a solid journeyman footballer - but clearly he could hold his own in the PL. My criticisms would be he made too many unforced errors giving the ball away in dangerous positions - I have a recollection of him giving the ball away needlessly in the first PL match at SMS on 25 August 2001 which then led to a Chelsea goal. Also, i don't think he scored enough goals to be seen as a really good midfield player. However, he has kept going up here and is well regarded - again as a solid player. 3 clubs in 17 years, one of which for for 12. That's some journey!
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 22 February, 2011 Posted 22 February, 2011 Always rated him but he needed the rest to perform to have a good game' date=' rarely was he outstanding when we lost, could not turn a game around like really great midfield players[/quote'] This is pretty much how I saw him. The bit I particularly recognise is highlighted.
Avenue Saint Posted 22 February, 2011 Posted 22 February, 2011 there may aways be a type of supporter that will with great ease oversee the merits a player like oakley brings to his team, i see this now being repeated with morgan... i thnk this debate is more to do with the type of fan and his understanding of the game rather than a reflection on players of the guise and undoubted importance of players like morgan and oakley! Oakley was an important player for us whom I would have back at a snap right now
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now