Poll - Sherwood - got rid

[paul richard]

Yes but Russell you didn't pick the Liverpool and Baggies games as examples because there really aren't any redeeming points.  The risk is that while we are waiting for Sherwood to learn from his mistakes we will continue to lose games.  My take is that if we haven't taken at least 4/5 points from the next four games (ie to the end of Oct) we need to jettison Sherwood.  If we drift on waiting for an improvement there will come a point of no return when even if we get rid of Sherwood it will be too late.  My hunch is that will be some time in November at the rate we're going.

[rob_bridge]

I suspect there'll be no sacking any time soon followed by any replacement MUST have Premier League experience in managing.

That seems to have been a pre-requisite for the last 5 recruits.

Obviously it may have a slight flaw on the grounds that a large number of trophies and managerial successes over the last 25 years have been won with managers with no prior English Premier League experience.

[kippaxvilla2]

I tell a lie.  Going into November 2000, Middlesbrough had 11 points when Venables came in to help Robson out.  They finished with 42 points and around 6th bottom.

[VILLA MOLE]

Pretty sure Middlesbrough had only two points at a fairly early stage of the season and survived.

there are still 93 points to play for , please please please 

[Villa in Denmark]

We've spent an absolute fortune on sacking and replacing Management teams under Lerner's stewardship. We've just had a summer with greater player-turnaround than ever before.  Now, more than ever, the club is crying out for some stability and patience.

No no. We had 3 seasons of stability under a wrong coach Lambert. That was more stable than the Forth bridge but all it did was waste 3 years. I don't want to waste anymore time on this so called stability and waste another season fighting relegation or worse getting relegated.

So have we been stable for 3 seasons or fighting relegation? Because they're 2 different things in my book.

Depends on which definition you take.

The definitions that point to our ongoing malaise being stable

a) able or likely to continue or last; firmly established; enduring or permanent: - Well we're certainly firmly established at the arse end of the table and it's starting to feel permanent.
b) steadfast; not wavering or changeable, as in character or purpose; dependable. - Yeah well our general position has been dependable and not subject to change

Those definitions that count against our ongoing malaise being described as stable.

a) not subject to emotional instability or illness; sane; mentally sound.  No one following us over the last 4-5 years is likely to be without some psychological damage by now.
b) resistant to sudden change or deterioration: Any further deterioration and we're fubar
c) not likely to fall or give way, as a structure, support, foundation, etc.; firm; steady. In the words of Mr. Eastwood, do you feel lucky punk?, Well do you?

3-2 to us not being stable, but there's plenty of scope for interpreting it that way.

[tony scott]

We are asked to be patient, following all that's gone on post Martin O'neil.  IMHO that is unreasonable and it is also lowering our expectations. We should expect better and we are not getting it. `I'm as mad as hell etc'.

[ktvillan]

I'd like to give Sherwood more of a chance but his repeated misreading of situations, failure to address obvious flaws, and tendency to blame the players,  smacks of someone who doesn't really know what he is doing and who is making it up as he goes along.   Moreover it smacks of someone lacking in self-knowledge and general intelligence.  Common sense even.  I'm struggling to see how more time in the job is going to put such basic failings right. 

[themossman]

I don't doubt that he will learn and improve. I'm not convinced a dysfunctional club like ours, with an equally inexperienced squad and on a four year losing streak is the place for him to do it. When he was appointed I said he would be a great short term manager but would need replacing at some stage mid 15/16 and I still believe this.

He was just the man to give us a bounce and get our big players performing in the run in last season, and will always have big kudos for saving us from (IMO) virtually certain relegation under Lambert.

Also I don't find him as abrasive as some others on here and would love him to learn quickly and stay around with a longer term remit. I just think it's too tall an order and our best short term solution is a manager with more experience.

[kippaxvilla2]

Pretty sure Middlesbrough had only two points at a fairly early stage of the season and survived.

there are still 93 points to play for , please please please 

I am with you brother.

[Villa in Denmark]

There's plenty of people out there who could be a good fit.

So you're not prepared to allow the current Manager a reasonable amount of patience but want to spend a fortune to bring in a Foreign Manager with no Premiership experience at all? Following the pattern, we'd then give that Manager what, 20 games, before going through the process again if it wasn't working?

What was it that Tom Fox said about flipping a coin again...?

It's not about being prepared to give him time, it's about a complete and utter lack of faith in him.

I thought he was a joke a Spurs.
I thought he was a joke when appointed.
I was pleasantly surprised when he pulled a couple of results out of the hat, and he showed some signs of developing a degree of tactical understanding at Spurs and obviously the cup semi final.
I was worried after Southampton
Everything since has just reinforced the original view.

For as long as he's in the job I'll be hoping he get's the results we need to move forward.  As disappointing as it would be, I'd settle for a season of bobbing along between 17th and 14th.

Look back at the how do thing we'll do this season.  I said inconsistent and looking poor up to Christmas probably 14th/15th improving into the new year ending 10th-12th.

What we're looking more like is consistently shit, and I don't trust him to turn it around.

The thing that finally did for me with Lambert is when it was blatantly obvious that he was getting nowhere near the potential out of the squad.
I'm not expecting him to suddenly turn us into a team that goes to Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge with an expectation of turning them over 2 or 3-0.
I do however expect him to show some degree of tactical development to give the team a chance.
In the last 4 games he's managed about 90 minutes worth of viable tactics in total.

Saturday was a master class in how not to park the bus, which followed on from the second half against Leicester, all of the stripey's game and the first half against that lot.
Add that to being completely undone by his good mate Ramsey against QPR last season, the only point that they picked up from the end of February until they beat an awful Newcastle in their last home game.

I'm pretty sure we'll stick with him and I'll wish him all the luck in the world, because I think he (and by virtue us) is going to need every drop of it.

[nick harper]

Pretty sure Middlesbrough had only two points at a fairly early stage of the season and survived.

Spurs had 2 points from 8 games when Redknapp was appointed a few seasons ago - and things did turn round pretty quickly.

It is still early days but if we lose against Stoke and Chelsea, it would be 4 points with almost a quarter of the season gone. Ifs and maybes, but the noise may well get very loud by mid October.

[olaftab]

So have we been stable for 3 seasons or fighting relegation? Because they're 2 different things in my book.

Stability in football is described as not changing manager and allowing the appointed person time to sort things out. We did that by sticking with Lambert for 3 seasons.
Fighting relegation is just the state of performance similar to fighting to get in the Champions League or actually trying to win the title. Stability produced very poor performance for us whereas for Arsenal, for example, it delivered consistent Champions League football. Chelsea however maintained a very high level of performance without having stability in their coaching staff. Crystal Palace have done much better than us  by changing Managers.

[RussellC]

So have we been stable for 3 seasons or fighting relegation? Because they're 2 different things in my book.

Stability in football is described as not changing manager and allowing the appointed person time to sort things out. We did that by sticking with Lambert for 3 seasons.
Fighting relegation is just the state of performance similar to fighting to get in the Champions League or actually trying to win the title. Stability produced very poor performance for us whereas for Arsenal, for example, it delivered consistent Champions League football. Chelsea however maintained a very high level of performance without having stability in their coaching staff. Crystal Palace have done much better than us  by changing Managers.

Sorry, but the idea that constantly fighting relegation equates to 'stability' is utter nonsense. The threat of relegation carries hugely negative financial implications, completely the opposite to consistently challenging for the Title or Champions League qualification. Surely you can see that?

[Dave P]

I've voted no.  He was given money to build his squad and bring in his own backroom staff.  He needs the chance to see if he can ride this out.  My fear is that we will turn into a club that appoints a firefighter like Pulis or Allerdyce half way through a season.

I wasn't jumping for joy when he was appointed but there was part of me that was pleased we were looking long term and I still think there is something there in Tim.

My answer may be different if we are adrift come January though.

[Toronto Villa]

So have we been stable for 3 seasons or fighting relegation? Because they're 2 different things in my book.

Stability in football is described as not changing manager and allowing the appointed person time to sort things out. We did that by sticking with Lambert for 3 seasons.
Fighting relegation is just the state of performance similar to fighting to get in the Champions League or actually trying to win the title. Stability produced very poor performance for us whereas for Arsenal, for example, it delivered consistent Champions League football. Chelsea however maintained a very high level of performance without having stability in their coaching staff. Crystal Palace have done much better than us  by changing Managers.

Sorry, but the idea that constantly fighting relegation equates to 'stability' is utter nonsense. The threat of relegation carries hugely negative financial implications, completely the opposite to consistently challenging for the Title or Champions League qualification. Surely you can see that?

I think you've missed the point Russell. I don't think for one minute Olly is calling that kind of stability anything to be pleased about.