The thing is Monty, you say you are giving him a chance but your every comment belies that. You made up your mind the second he was appointed and haven't approached it with the open mind required to truly give the msn a chance. You don't knowledge the improvement in performances, you don't acknowledge he's got more out of certain individuals than Houllier did and while you accept that he took over in difficult circumstances you give no leeway because of it.
I pointed out the Everton game as it was such an obvious contradiction to the article, there are plenty more. Our problem is inconsistency, we are capable of good football but we're equally capable of appalling individual errors which often undo all of the other good work and undermine our already fragile confidence further.
And "nihilistic", are you sure?
Sorry Chris, that's just bollocks. You can't just go out there and accuse me of thinking things which I just didn't. Sure, I was far from enamoured by the appointment, I think we all were, but certainly in the early days I did nothing but give him the benefit of the doubt: I thought Hutton could have been a good signing (who knows, he may still turn out to be), I certainly liked the N'Zogbia signing, I agreed (still do) about playing Gabby on the wing, praised the improved fitness of players like Petrov and Dunne, thought the way he gave Bannan and Herd decent chances in the first team was a good thing, and he appears to have given Ireland the confidence back to play well.
These are positives. However, those numerous negatives detailed everywhere outweigh them for me. I don't boo the team, never have and, probably, never will, I haven't gone on any demonstrations, I still hope he gets it right, but I just struggle to see how he will given the facts available. I mean, for goodness' sake, after one game he said "the passing was poor, which I can't do anything about" - really? For a manager to say that is pretty amazing.
I acknowledged the improvement in performances more than most. You can also talk about how there are instances of obvious contradictions to the article, but this is my fundamental problem: I don't doubt that he wants to be more attacking, I just doubt that he knows how. I don't question his sincerity - just his competence. And lord knows, on some occasions his commitment to attacking football has certainly waned - the selections and performances against Spurs and (people don't talk about this one so much, but it stuck in my mind) Stoke were certainly nihilistic (one use of the word: "The belief that all endeavours are ultimately futile and devoid of meaning" - not a bad description of our Spurs capitulation).
It's notable that, since Ireland has replaced the injured Heskey in the side, the football has improved. But that wasn't a tactical switch - that was just Heskey getting injured, so he put someone in the team to operate in the same areas. Would he have done this if Heskey was fully fit? We might never know, but the fact that he only did it because of an injury to Emile could be called telling.
Look, it's obvious we're not going to come to an agreement on this. I reserve the right to be reasonably critical. You're treating my arguments as if I'm dazzyg or someone, which I find a little unfair. My arguments are, I believe, based on evidence and certainly comprise an understandable position to hold at the present time. They're also subject to change on the basis of evidence.