Poll - Sherwood - got rid

[PaulWinch again]

I don't think he should go yet, but it really worries me that he seems oblivious to our very obvious problems.

[Toronto Villa]

We all knew that once he had used up his magic potion called Enthusiasm, then he had to show us a lot more. What he did last year in short order was nothing short of a miracle because after Hull we were all but dead. Yet somehow we pulled in some great results to get us over the line, and a cup final to boot even if it ultimately fell flat. He can's use Enthusiasm anymore because it's a one time thing. Players see through that and as professionals they want to see the manager have an understanding of the game and make tactical adjustments that give them confidence. In a way it's a bit like MON, who is a great manager for a very short period of time, but ultimately his methods get old quickly. The good managers keep evolving and for Sherwood to stay relevant he needs to mature and evolve and I'm not sure he can fast enough at this level.

[RussellC]

What is clear though, is that there comes a certain point when it's clear that a manager IS going to take you down, and we had hit that point with Lambert last season.  Sherwood came in and did well enough to keep us up, and for that I will be forever monumentally grateful, but I think he's been desperately shit this season, and there's no room for sentiment in football. 

To be absolutely truthful, it would be silly to get rid of him now, but I honestly don't think we're far off reaching the point of no return if he doesn't improve performances by at least 50%.  Lose to Stoke and Chelsea and it would be an enormous task to turn things round, and one that I don't think he'd be capable of.  But we'll see in a couple of weeks I suppose where we are.  Just to reiterate, I hope he proves me wrong, as I do want him to succeed.  I've had enough of sacking managers, but not as much as I've had enough of us pissing about in the bottom four or five places in the league.

I agree with this, I just think it's too soon. Even after the next 2 games I would be very reticent to pull the trigger unless I could identify a really strong replacement, not just sack one Manager to take a punt on another who'd be expected to work wit the same players.

Strangely, the example of Leicester that you give works both ways. Their 'Great Escape' last season shows the benefits of sticking with your Manager through early season troubles. I get the impression that Pearson's sacking was more due to his descent into madness than his Managerial record.

[Risso]

Net spend is largely irrelevant.  Sherwood has brought in lots of players, very few of whom weren't decent money, and he and everybody else on here seemed content with the business.  I think Gueye is at least as good as Delph, because what exactly did Snakeboy contribute in his three years here?  Hardly anything tangible in the way of assists and goals.

Benteke is a huge loss, but this for me is Sherwood's biggest failing, because he repalced him with an immobile lower division lump, albeit one who knows how to plant a header, and somebody who doesn't really seem sure if he's a striker or a winger.  That's probably the one position where he should have gone out and got somebody of proven quality.

[RussellC]

Net spend is largely irrelevant.  Sherwood has brought in lots of players, very few of whom weren't decent money, and he and everybody else on here seemed content with the business.  I think Gueye is at least as good as Delph, because what exactly did Snakeboy contribute in his three years here?  Hardly anything tangible in the way of assists and goals.

Benteke is a huge loss, but this for me is Sherwood's biggest failing, because he repalced him with an immobile lower division lump, albeit one who knows how to plant a header, and somebody who doesn't really seem sure if he's a striker or a winger.  That's probably the one position where he should have gone out and got somebody of proven quality.

Which would have cost more? Which shows the relevance of net spend...

[olaftab]

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?

No I can't. You are mixing stability with performance level. All teams in the league have the same pressure. Believe me regular CL teams are just as terrified of missing out on top four as the rest are on being relegated from PL.

[Toronto Villa]

Net spend is largely irrelevant.  Sherwood has brought in lots of players, very few of whom weren't decent money, and he and everybody else on here seemed content with the business.  I think Gueye is at least as good as Delph, because what exactly did Snakeboy contribute in his three years here?  Hardly anything tangible in the way of assists and goals.

Benteke is a huge loss, but this for me is Sherwood's biggest failing, because he repalced him with an immobile lower division lump, albeit one who knows how to plant a header, and somebody who doesn't really seem sure if he's a striker or a winger.  That's probably the one position where he should have gone out and got somebody of proven quality.

Which would have cost more? Which shows the relevance of net spend...

it doesn't. It just means we should have bought a forward. In fact Benteke is a perfect example against the notion of net spend. There have been plenty of forwards bought for much more than we spent on Benteke without close to the same level of return. In fact had we spent four times as much on him we'd still be ahead. The fact is we used our available resources to find a player that for not very much was superb. We could have bought someone else for twice the price and not had anything like the same performance. In simplistic terms I would argue this season instead of bringing in Ayew and Gestede for example we'd be better off for a little bit more getting Austin. Our net spend would have been much the same but we'd have a player who scores goals. We create chances but don't convert as many as we should. That has been Sherwood's main transfer failing.

[RussellC]

it doesn't. It just means we should have bought a forward. In fact Benteke is a perfect example against the notion of net spend. There have been plenty of forwards bought for much more than we spent on Benteke without close to the same level of return. In fact had we spent four times as much on him we'd still be ahead. The fact is we used our available resources to find a player that for not very much was superb. We could have bought someone else for twice the price and not had anything like the same performance. In simplistic terms I would argue this season instead of bringing in Ayew and Gestede for example we'd be better off for a little bit more getting Austin. Our net spend would have been much the same but we'd have a player who scores goals. We create chances but don't convert as many as we should. That has been Sherwood's main transfer failing.

But how often does a Benteke come along? We can;t just expect the club to unearth a gem like that every summer. That's just pie in the sky stuff. Because we bought Beneteke for £7m and sold him for £32.5 net spend should no longer be a consideration for transfer-budgets?

I just don’t understand this blind-eye people are willing to turn to net spend. It’s like me telling you you’ve got £100k to make improvements to your house, but then knocking down your garage and setting fire to your kitchen. You’re not going to improve your house by the overall spend, are you? Now imagine your house is already the shittest house on the block...

[RussellC]

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?

No I can't. You are mixing stability with performance level. All teams in the league have the same pressure. Believe me regular CL teams are just as terrified of missing out on top four as the rest are on being relegated from PL.

Whatever. It doesn't alter the fact that Sherwood walked into a club that were/are perennial relegation battlers. Which is the point I'm making.

[Risso]

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?

No I can't. You are mixing stability with performance level. All teams in the league have the same pressure. Believe me regular CL teams are just as terrified of missing out on top four as the rest are on being relegated from PL.

Whatever. It doesn't alter the fact that Sherwood walked into a club that were/are perennial relegation battlers. Which is the point I'm making.

He did indeed, and that was never going to be turned round over night.  However, the end to last season and the start to this has been woeful, and whatever he said after the Liverpool game at the weekend, his view last season was that this wasn't going to be another season of struggle. He's actually given us the worst start to a season since we last went down, and needs to turn things round quick smart. 

[Clampy]

Net spend is largely irrelevant.  Sherwood has brought in lots of players, very few of whom weren't decent money, and he and everybody else on here seemed content with the business.  I think Gueye is at least as good as Delph, because what exactly did Snakeboy contribute in his three years here?  Hardly anything tangible in the way of assists and goals.

Benteke is a huge loss, but this for me is Sherwood's biggest failing, because he repalced him with an immobile lower division lump, albeit one who knows how to plant a header, and somebody who doesn't really seem sure if he's a striker or a winger.  That's probably the one position where he should have gone out and got somebody of proven quality.

Which would have cost more? Which shows the relevance of net spend...

it doesn't. It just means we should have bought a forward. In fact Benteke is a perfect example against the notion of net spend. There have been plenty of forwards bought for much more than we spent on Benteke without close to the same level of return. In fact had we spent four times as much on him we'd still be ahead. The fact is we used our available resources to find a player that for not very much was superb. We could have bought someone else for twice the price and not had anything like the same performance. In simplistic terms I would argue this season instead of bringing in Ayew and Gestede for example we'd be better off for a little bit more getting Austin. Our net spend would have been much the same but we'd have a player who scores goals. We create chances but don't convert as many as we should. That has been Sherwood's main transfer failing.

Scoring goals is not really the problem though is it at the moment? It's keeping them out which is buggering us up. Throw in one or two of Sherwood's blunders and we are where are. It can change though because overall, under Sherwood, we don't look too bad a side.

[RussellC]

He did indeed, and that was never going to be turned round over night.  However, the end to last season and the start to this has been woeful, and whatever he said after the Liverpool game at the weekend, his view last season was that this wasn't going to be another season of struggle. He's actually given us the worst start to a season since we last went down, and needs to turn things round quick smart. 

I'd imagine that when Sherwood said that he probably thought he'd have Vlaar, Delph, Cleverley and around £40m to play around with in the forthcoming summer.

That said, I fully agree that we need an upturn in results and soon. Very soon.

[pauliewalnuts]

Scoring goals is not really the problem though is it at the moment? It's keeping them out which is buggering us up. Throw in one or two of Sherwood's blunders and we are where are. It can change though because overall, under Sherwood, we don't look too bad a side.

Yet, there we are, second from bottom. Don't get me wrong, I take your point, sometimes we look decent. We looked more than decent at Leicester until Tim tried to change some things.

The "looked good for spells" argument (not saying you are talking about this, but in general) - how often have we heard that precise sentence over the last few years? Fuck knows. Lots.

The problem is, you don't get points for a decent half here and there, it takes much more than that.

[themossman]

Increasingly it's looking like the Leicester game may have killed the sherwood regime. IN a parallel universe where we hung on and won, despite playing badly for half the game, everything would be better - points on the board, player confidence, faith in TS's judgment. The football was generally OK(ish) until then and momentum appeared to be going in the right direction. Fine margins.

[SamTheMouse]

I see the OS is spinning the "youthful side" bullshit again today.

The average age of the side that started against Liverpool was 26. Hardly an U21 team ffs.