See this is the bit I don’t agree with. Manning wasn’t brought in with Thorup’s mandate of a project (to my knowledge). And Thorup may have achieved the same or fewer points, but that’s irrelevant to my mind because as I said, this is about stylistic approach and long term possibility. Thorup’s early games were marked with lots of reasons to be positive, just like Farke’s were - so appealing for patience there makes sense. But just because Thorup got treated with patience doesn’t mean Manning should be.
Which goes back to my previous question on the Stoke City thread - if 7 games isn’t enough to assess Manning, how many games is?
I said 10 games back at the beginning of the season (which meant 11 if we include the cup!) I’d accept that answer now - albeit I have backtracked and made my mind up!!
But happy to be persuaded if there is a turnaround in performance over the next three games - I think it’s unlikely.
I know you answered that question with “half a season, at least”. Fair enough. For me, that’s way too long as our season could easily be over after half of it is done, if we persist with an obviously failing project. The bit that worries me is that I think (albeit not wholly sold) our transfer activity in the summer was hugely positive - not perfect in terms of profile of players/style, but there have been some really useful additions to the squad. If we waste half a season of their contribution and then clearly we won’t get promoted, we will next Summer undoubtedly lose Sargent and others, so we will be even further off strength.
For me, with the Summer investment, we should be decisive in the strategy. If the manager is clearly failing, get rid. If the club decide the new strategy is to be patient with the new manager then great - but that’s not the idea with Manning