It's not Sherwood!

[Toronto Villa]

I think it was massively unfair Monty if you genuinely considered Sherwood's qualities as zero. If he came with no badges and straight from being a player I might agree with you but he didn't. And how in earth would he have kept us up with zero ability? You can't just bullshit your way through PL games.

He is a qualified coach and did his job quite well as manager, albeit briefly. In fact given what he has done in a short time and very professionally I might add, he puts the like of a number of so called "experienced" or better established managers to shame.

He'd had next to no games. You absolutely can bullshit your way through that number of games, especially with those sorts of players, and what's more his tactical record was ominously bad. He started similarly here, with a rigid 4-4-2 with wide open spaces and lumping to the big guy. He's since done what I didn't think he would do: changed it, and changed it to something interesting. We had more men in midfield, and that combined with his obviously actual quality (enthusiasm) to produce something like real football. Long may it continue - it just doesn't feel sustainable to me somehow.

So at PL level a manger with zero experience and zero ability can play half a season on bullshit alone. Sorry I completely disagree. And your also saying he start with no ability and no tactical nous but 5 games ago with a side he knew next to nothing about yet somehow in the space of a month has developed tactical nous to completely change how we play, let alone improve the quality of the product. Listen, I'm not calling him any kind of genius but I certainly put his ability greater than anything like zero.

I think your dislike of him Monty is making it very difficult for you to view his appointment rationally. With all due respect.

[SamTheMouse]

I think it was massively unfair Monty if you genuinely considered Sherwood's qualities as zero. If he came with no badges and straight from being a player I might agree with you but he didn't. And how in earth would he have kept us up with zero ability? You can't just bullshit your way through PL games.

He is a qualified coach and did his job quite well as manager, albeit briefly. In fact given what he has done in a short time and very professionally I might add, he puts the like of a number of so called "experienced" or better established managers to shame.

He'd had next to no games. You absolutely can bullshit your way through that number of games, especially with those sorts of players, and what's more his tactical record was ominously bad. He started similarly here, with a rigid 4-4-2 with wide open spaces and lumping to the big guy. He's since done what I didn't think he would do: changed it, and changed it to something interesting. We had more men in midfield, and that combined with his obviously actual quality (enthusiasm) to produce something like real football. Long may it continue - it just doesn't feel sustainable to me somehow.

I know what you mean. Sherwood's come into an Alamo situation, there's an emergency and so his brand of all-energy, Duracell bunny enthusiasm has been just what the players needed to find some urgency and confidence. And it's worked a treat so far.

My worry is that, if and when safety is secured, and next season in November we're playing Stoke away on a miserable night, when there's nothing much at stake to play for, will positive energy be enough?

But maybe that's being a bit pernickety. He's made a great start, and hopefully he can keep it up over the longer term.

[Toronto Villa]

Funny thing is the Alamo was an experienced manager like Lambert losing his head at home to Bradford. Sherwood has been nothing like that despite the overall situation at the club upon his arrival being significantly worse. He hasn't just thrown caution to the wind. He admits to having made some errors vs Stoke and Newcastle and that the plan wasn't exactly followed by the players who became nervous. But more structure has started to appear in the past three games so it is clearly something they have worked on.

[pauliewalnuts]

He's been here, what, five games now?

It doesn't matter what Sherwood has or has not done, that's nothing like a big enough sample to draw any conclusions from, regardless of your standpoint.

I honestly don't get it. Why not just be happy with what has gone on so far rather than feel the need to paint him as brilliant or awful when, the truth is, we just don't know.

Lest we forget, it was a sample of four games that got Lambert a new deal, and look how that panned out.

He might turn out to be amazing, he might turn out to be a disaster, we just have no idea as of yet. You could even look at his record and say he has a 60 percent win rate, but then again, that's also a 40% lose rate. It is just meaningless at this point.

I'm too busy enjoying being able to read the sports reports and watch MOTD again to be too concerned about all that stuff.

[Monty]

TV, ask anyone in the game, bullshitters get on fine. You think Gary Megson deserved Premier League jobs for as long as he had them? Eventually they get found out, but it's really amazing how long it can take. Once you're 'on the circuit', it's hard to get you off. Football isn't a pure sporting meritocracy where the cream rises to the top every time - it's an incestuous, nepotistic, boys' club environment where mates get 'favours' all the time and bad decisions with few consequences are very very normal.

Is Sherwood one such bullshitter? Maybe he has a career as a firefighter type who might get found out in longer-term jobs, but will always have a job. Maybe we'll go to hell from here and he never works again. Or maybe he wins us the Champions' League and manages us to trophy after trophy for a decade. I'm with SamTheMouse on this - it's all very hyped up, but it is just a little bit mad to be an actual plan.

I'm not blinded, I just know it can change very quickly in either direction in football. He wasn't necessarily the worst manager ever after his first two games (though he made a few mistakes), and he's not necessarily the best in the world having won a few. I love the wins, and want us to stay up, and scoring four in a game was amazing. We'll just see if it lasts.

[brian green]

Define "sustainable" Mont.   Will he dispel your fears if he gets us to be as secure as Stoke? or Everton? or Swansea? or Southampton?  At what point, if ever, would he get you to like him?

[Dave]

I'm still convinced that it's going to end in a huge car-crash of tears and recriminations, but thinking about it nearly all managerial stints end along those lines eventually. It just depends on how long it takes.

I'd still be surprised if he is with us going into the 16-17 season. But for now, he's doing better than the last guy and I'm pretty sure we'll stay up. That'll do for me for the moment.

[supertom]

I've certainly been impressed with a lot of his tactical decisions and substitutions in the last 3 games. I wasn't adverse to signing Sherwood but I felt, given his rep at Spurs he'd be getting by purely on rousing the troops and have all the subtlety of a kick in the bollocks, but to be fair to him he's shown a lot more nous than I, and many will have expected. He's done things Lambert should have done 18 months ago.
Long may it continue. He could well be more than just another Redknapp (as some have compared him to). My gut feeling is good. But what does my gut know? I thought Lambert would work out.

We're due a decent spell though. I've got faith Sherwood can deliver that next season.

[Toronto Villa]

If you are talking about guys who get found out over the course of time in the PL then that is pretty much every manager who has ever managed in it with the exception of literally a handful of the very elite. As for whether or not it is a plan, would it more fair to call it a plan if we appointed Laudrup and he got the same results? My point is if your not that keen on Sherwood is it is easier to consider it not a plan because of who he is?

And yes the sample size is tiny, but whoever came in the sample size would have been tiny. I just think he deserves a bit more credit than it is all a bit jammy and that it will probably all fall apart. Because going by PL history then whoever the club would have appointed that would likely have been the ultimate outcome sooner or later.

[nodge]

He's worked out pretty quickly that Gabby needs to play up front not on the wing.  Get the ball up to Benteke quickly and he'll score goals.  Cleverley, Westwood and Sanchez don't have to all be in central midfield and Weimann doesn't have to play every game, especially when he's playing shit.  He also hasn't mentioned that the team can't do any better because of the wages we pay, unlike the last two managers.  He also realises you have to take a gamble now and again, unlike the last two managers.

[Monty]

Southampton or Swansea level would be nice, and with each passing game or month or season it becomes more apparent how sustainable the style is. If we have no relegation scare next season and play decent stuff, I'll be happy. I may never actually like the guy - the whole bantersaurus thing annoys me more than I can possibly say - but if he turns out to be an actual, no-jokes good manager, then why wouldn't I say so? Lots of dislikeable people are good managers - in fact, sometimes I wonder if that's one of the necessary aspects of a good manager.

[Toronto Villa]

It's not down to pure luck and shouting loudly to all of a sudden make Gabby look absolutely brilliant, Cleverely into every bit a PL midfielder, N'Zogbia into a dangerous weapon and manage to figure out how to get Benteke scoring again. And it's not just the manager. It is in large part the people he has on his staff. He clearly has surrounded himself with good people, which is a mark of any good manager and Lambert's ultimate failure. Successful management in any industry isn't only about what you do, it is very much how you delegate your authority and give freedoms to those you trust. It is a team effort so far and the players have really bought into it.

[supertom]

We've not had a manager who hasn't been found out in the Prem after a while. Ron's team of old dogs got worked out and he end up in a relegation battle. Brian Littles first two and a half seasons were good but soon he got worked out. Gregory started very well and became increasingly more dour as the years went by before leaving (at a good time for him really as we'd have regressed under him). O Leary had an excellent calender year in 04 but there was little subtlety to the game plan and we got worked out pretty quickly. We ended up battling relegation.

O Neill is probably the only manager who made a steady progress, going from 50, to 60, to 62 and finally 64 points. But what would the following season have held for us had he stayed? IMO mid-table mediocrity, though probably not the relegation scrap we had for much of it. He left with his record looking rosy, but as many of us felt, we'd hit his ceiling.

Will Sherwood buck the trend? Nope. But if we can have just 1 or 2 decent seasons out of him before the momentum runs dry, that'd be fantastic. The key thing will be replacing sensibly. I can understand having the odd relegation scrap around a changeover, but we should stabilise in good time as opposed to have four long, dreadful years of walking on thin ice. That's just too long.

[Dave]

Lots of dislikeable people are good managers - in fact, sometimes I wonder if that's one of the necessary aspects of a good manager.

I dunno about that - Carlo Ancelotti always seems like a rather lovable teddy bear.

[Toronto Villa]

Southampton or Swansea level would be nice, and with each passing game or month or season it becomes more apparent how sustainable the style is. If we have no relegation scare next season and play decent stuff, I'll be happy. I may never actually like the guy - the whole bantersaurus thing annoys me more than I can possibly say - but if he turns out to be an actual, no-jokes good manager, then why wouldn't I say so? Lots of dislikeable people are good managers - in fact, sometimes I wonder if that's one of the necessary aspects of a good manager.

Yes, the bantering is part of who he is, but you either listen to it or you don't. Outside of some of the bluster he has said a lot of important things. Things that merit listening to. All managers come out with complete bollocks; Mourinho is fabulous at it. The difference is he has a lot to back it up so I agree too much from Sherwood can get rather old. Something he will need to tone down without taking away from the value that it can bring.