Ian Holloway Should Put Olly Out To Pasture

10 By Mark  |   The Ball  |   November 22, 2010  |     10

Pretty much everyone in football must have an admiration for what Ian Holloway has achieved at Blackpool, even if it is only a sneaking admiration. I’ve advocated awarding Bournemouth’s Eddie Howe two “manager-of-the-year” awards for they way he has turned AFC Bournemouth’s fortunes around from minus seventeen points at the bottom of League Two to their current fourth place in League One. Holloway would have been a close runner-up at least once. And while Blackpool’s start to Premier League life may yet prove to be a “Hull” (or a “Reading” or an “Ipswich” or the numerous teams who succumbed to “second season syndrome”), for the moment they are there to be admired.

But when a microphone appears, Ian Holloway the manager seems to be replaced by “Olly”, a talkative, combative “character” in the inverted commas sense of the word… with a funny accent to boot and a disdain for authority which is all the rage at the minute in the face of government cuts and FIFA corruption.  “The game” has always “needed characters” – even in the days when they supposedly had them. The recent passing away of Malcolm Allison vividly reminded us of that, especially the few clips of him as a TV studio pundit, holding forth in a manner that nearly made Jimmy Hill tear his chin off and makes Alan Shearer seem, I dunno… dull (that the few Allison clips contained huge servings of casual racism about foreign “peasants” was overlooked amid the mourning).

So, “Olly” is a quotable godsend. What was it he said after Charlie Adam headed into his own net against Blackburn earlier this season? “What a finish?” Had the Match of the Day pundits in stitches, that one. I never knew Oscar Wilde was from Bristol. It was very brave of him to threaten to resign if he got fined over the “different” team he selected for Blackpool’s game at Aston Villa. As he put it in his Independent on Sunday column, “I’m convinced that won’t happen.” So why the empty threat, then?  Attention-seeking? Part of an ugly trend of managers threatening to take action if they are criticised, like Harry Redknapp did after impugning referee Mark Clattenburg’s honesty recently?  “Olly” went on: “I’m not used to being told the Premier League can tell me what I’m not allowed to do and then fine us.” Yes, those faceless bureaucrats in their ivory towers who don’t know what it’s like at the coalface… blah… jumped-up suits… blazers… blah… lazy journalists… more blah…

Well, “Olly” had better get used to it. Because let’s get a couple of things straight here. I know the matter has been the subject of debate – including a thoughtful article on this site. But Holloway DID field a weakened team at Villa. And the Premier League, governed by the rule book which is accepted by all clubs – most recently by Newcastle, West Brom and… Blackpool, simply asked the question we all asked when we heard the team news: “What’s he done that for?”. “Olly”, however, was telling us that “all 25 players (in the squad) are as good as each other”, that he finds the fuss “so astounding” and, of course, that “lazy journalism” was to blame. All the lazy journalists could do after the game was dare to ask the question to which everyone wanted to know the answer. Almost as if that was their… erm… job.

Holloway knows that the Premier League have to ask him the question, because their rules, rightly or wrongly, specify that strongest available teams have to be picked at all times.  Alan Shearer made the point on Match of the Day that it was ridiculous for a manager to have a squad of 25 and not be allowed to pick who he wants from that squad, when he wants. But unless or until the relevant Premier League rule is abolished, it is an irrelevant point. Holloway made wholesale changes to his previous line-up and, more importantly, his following line-up too. If Holloway wanted as many of his squad to play only two of the three games Blackpool had that week, which in itself struck me as quite sensible management of resources, it was an odd way to do it,.

He picked a team at Villa with six Premier League debutants and about a dozen Premier League games between them. Whereas the team for the game at West Ham had about eight times the experience, including five players who were ever-present before the trip to Villa (and, bar the injured keeper Matthew Gilks, have been ever-present since). The Villa selection could almost have been designed to attract the attention it did. And, given his squad, it was almost the least experienced he could have picked.  Yet “Olly,” fresh out of irrelevance school, “cannot understand why someone would even dream of fining us when we’ve come into the top League of English football and are doing so well.”

Well, if “Olly” really can’t understand why someone should be fined for breaking league rules, then “Olly” isn’t very bright.  “Olly” also bleated about how “the whole episode had been blown out of all proportion.” And he added: “Anyone who saw the game will know we were fantastic.”- which begs two questions:

  1. Exactly who, apart from “Olly” himself has made such a big issue out of this, when the only action taken so far is the Premier League writing a letter asking for an explanation of the selection?; and
  2. If his team were as “so fantastic” as “Olly” claims, why did Ian Holloway drop all eleven of them for the next game?

This whole “Olly” shtick is boring. If it’s an attempt to provoke a siege mentality at his club, it’s a clumsy and obvious one – not to mention un-necessary, given the football his team are playing. And if it’s an attempt to play the little man standing up to faceless bureaucracy, it’s a poor one – far better to pick on petty rule-making, when you haven’t accepted that rule in the first place before blatantly breaking it. Ian Holloway should stick to what he’s good at, and put “Olly” back in his box, until his management career is over and he has an after-dinner speaking circuit to travel. Because all “Olly” is doing now is distracting attention from Ian Holloway, who has been one of the best, if not the best, managers of a football team in the past couple of years.

Follow Twohundredpercent on Twitter here.

  • November 22, 2010 at 9:24 am


    Speaking as a Bristol Rovers fan, we have longer experience of Ian Holloway than anyone. I can assure you that ‘Olly’ isn’t some character he plays up for the sake of the media, that’s who he is. He was like that when he was one of the most honest, dedicated and determined footballers we’ve ever had at the club, he was like that when he managed us and I doubt he’ll change now.

    You have a fair point about his questioning of the Premier League’s rules of course. But he won’t change because that’s his personality, he’s combative, he’s honest and he’ll say what he thinks even when he’s completely wrong. They’re the qualities – along with his long years of service to the Rovers – that mean he’s deeply loved in Bristol and I hope he never changes.

    And there’s nothing funny about his accent!

  • November 22, 2010 at 9:25 am


    Another good point was made on Final Score, by either Mark Bright or Garth Crooks, that the League has to look after the integrity of the entire league, and that dropping ten players for one game, and then reinstating them could leave Holloway open if there were claims about irregular betting patterns.

  • November 22, 2010 at 10:09 am


    “He picked a team at Villa with six Premier League debutants and about a dozen Premier League games between them.”

    Not quite true this, is it?

    The team picked at Villa actually had many times more Premier League appearances than any other picked this season.

    Jason Euell, Marlon Harewood and Brett Ormerod have made hundreds of PL appearances between them.

    I agree with much of the article, but don’t let facts get in the way, eh?

  • November 22, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Chris P

    I think the rule needs to be tightened up, fielding a “weakened team” is just too open to interpretation. If it was a case of X number of players in a starting 11 must have X number of appearances in the last X months then you could stamp out this kind of thing. What those x’s should be is open to debate, but a clearer more specific rule (if weighted correctly) could only benefit the game.

  • November 22, 2010 at 10:45 am

    Mark Murphy

    Thanks, OneDave,

    I’d blame the proof reader for deleting the key words “this season,” except the proff rodder was me too.

  • November 22, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Tiger Phil

    I have to agree with the posters on here. Who said that the team he fielded was a “weaker” side. I look at the side he put out against Villa- a side that after 90 minutes looked like had taken a point- only for it to be snatched away in injury time….
    As someone has already stated- the team he put out could, reallistically be called a stronger side- more PL games, experience goals. All kinds of things. Why can’t a manager not choose whatever side he chooses….

  • November 22, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Micky F

    Of course Man Ure, Chelski, Arse or the Scousers would never be sent a please explain if they fielded a weakened team before a big European game would they?

  • November 22, 2010 at 1:26 pm


    What does ‘the strongest available team’ mean? And who decides who is the strongest available other than the manager? Rules have to be fair, clear and unambiguous- and this one is none of these three things.

  • November 22, 2010 at 7:49 pm


    Very few rules are actually unambiguous in practice.

  • November 23, 2010 at 1:46 am


    On the subject of the Olly/Holloway personas, did anyone else hear his interview on the Football League podcast late last season? Holloway was out of character and still every bit as engaging as when he’s speaking as Olly. He described how his wife had to talk him into driving to Blackpool at 6am for his interview, after a year out of the game had erased his self-confidence. It was a brilliant insight into the character of the man (and his wife, of course).

Leave A Comment

Also available on…
Speek Yo Branes
Socialise With Us