See, and without wishing to offend anyone, this seems like a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the fanbase to me.
Performances were dropping away under Mowbray. Mowbray is a good coach. Beale is also a good coach. Beale has the same players to work with as Mowbray, there are still the same gaps in the squad, the injury situation has arguably gotten slightly worse. There are only so many options open to him to change things up.
A new manager bounce usually occurs when a team is really struggling in the league. A new manager comes in and the first thing he does is make the team hard to beat, parks the bus. Results pick up on the back of that. Beale hasn't had to do that. He's had to try and keep the same team playing in the same kind of way.
One non-league manager I know reckons a manager makes at most 10% difference to any given team. I think that's modesty on his part because he's very good but it's reflective of the fact that it's the players on the pitch who have to do the majority of the work. There is only so much a manager can do if the players can't or won't follow his instructions.
Stats don't tell the full story. They should never been used out of context and a falling xG doesn't fully reflect how dominant were against Hull, for example.
Beale is right, some minor things fall our way and we could have got results from both Ipswich and Hull. If that had been the case, the conversation around him may have been different. The margins are very fine. Years ago, Graham Taylor was sacked by Wolves because they were relegated. They lost their last game 2-1. They hit the bar in the final minute. An inch lower, they draw, and he keeps his job.
