I'm not talking about individual signings, but I think there's little doubt in most peoples minds that he's failed in the last two windows in bringing in enough adequate signings for the manager to work with... he then made a poor decision in sacking Puel in my opinion too.
Like I say, I'm not calling for him to go, just curious how many more windows where we haven't addressed glaring holes in the team would he need before it's not considered 'ridiculous'.
We have a full 25 man squad, 24 of you exclude Gardos and Clasie. With 2 'adequate' players in every position.
We have enough 'adequate' players.
We lack any exceptional attackers but that's not really a hole you can just go out and fill on our budget
There aren't any glaring holes, ask any member on this forum, and we've had discussions on many times in the past, and they come up with a different answer. Target man, pacy striker, pacy winger, creative AM, somebody to shoot from outside of the box.
For me the biggest hole is a pacy right winger. But we have a 'pacy' right winger in Redmond. So if that is a hole why have 2 successive manager not used our 'pacy' right winger in the pacy right winger hole for more than 45 minutes over two seasons?
If you analyse Reed's decisions individually, I come to the conclusion that's they're usually the correct decision.
I said his biggest mistake was sacking Puel but we don't truely know the reason for that. If he had completely lost the players then it was probably right to sack him, even though he was the correct manager. Before that his biggest mistake was bringing in Redmond as he didn't suit the manager. But we didn't know who the manager would be so it was a choice between rolling the dice with redmond - filling the glaring right winger hole, or buying no attacker. Would you really say buying no attacker for last season would have been the right decision?
Then his mistake was not bringing in a manager consistent to the previous one for whom he scouted the players. This season, after having to sack Puel he brought in Pellegrino, a manager who played almost identically to Puel. Which is quite a remarkable achievement really since 2 managers are usually like snowflakes. He also didn't roll the dice with an attacker this time.
Personally I think he made the wrong decision with bringing in Pellegrino, I think he should still have been looking for a manager similiar to Koeman who played traditional wingers, not Puel. Past that I think most of his decisions have been the right ones. He's just been unlucky on his rolls of the dice. And football involes a lot of luck.
To answer your question, I don't think he's untouchable, but he would have to be making a lot more wrong decisions before I would consider getting rid.