I’ve said before that I think Martin would be getting plaudits if he had a better squad.
So I guess it depends on your view. Is a good manager someone who adapts to the situation and changes his style based on the ability/talents of the squad.
Or is it someone who has a set of principles they stick to and, when they work, are successful and (to some) appealing to watch, resulting in dominating games.
I remember an interview with Pulis when Stoke got promoted he spoke with Alex Ferguson. Ferguson said to him you have no chance of staying up with your squad playing football, the best hope you have is to make the Britannia a fortress and ****ing horrible to play in. If any opposition manager praises you for your style of play after a game then you’ve ****ed right up
So they let the grass grow long, they brought in Delaps long throws and they made the pitch as narrow and as short as was allowed and they made it horrible for much more talented teams to play there. Wenger even got a rule changed because of Stoke and the maximum length the grass can be is shorter now.
We roll out the red carpet and try and outplay far more talented sides than us, top managers are fluffing Martins ego before and after games and look where it’s getting us. Stoke are obviously an extreme example but I think the general point is valid. You have to adapt when you aren’t as talented, and we aren’t
When another manager compliments ours after a loss I see it as a mark of disgrace. Like a condescending older sibling or cousin ruffling your hair and saying ‘At least you tried’.
Martin should be feeling that way too, but unfortunately it’s probably going straight in the **** bank.
How would doing this get them rich? They must’ve lost millions on their investment so far