I voted Christmas.I would be very surprised if we are lower than 18th.We only have two of the top eight teams to play and we have not lost to any side in the bottom half except Villa.Yesterday was a disgrace but this isn't the time for knee jerk reaction that could prove frypan to fire.
A fair amount will depend on the performance next week, should they not win, so I have have gone for the West Ham game - should City lose. I originally said 1st December, but the way City capitulated twice in a week, has open up a whole new set of questions about the harmony and spirit of the team, as a whole for me.
That's a fair reaction Thai and whilst I understand it I just have grave doubts about who would come in.The stats with all those top teams played to date is a big consideration.Bottom half teams going to Arsenal,Spurs and Citeh are going to leave with nothing.Our other two away games have been Stoke (win) and Hull,which we were very,very unlucky to lose to promoted side who have done really well.
I agree, there seem to be very few candidates that would be welcomed with open arms by the majority of fans I would think, but on the other hand, the ground-swell of opinion that CH is not the man to lead the team is ever-growing, and the real worrying thing for CH has to be, following yesterday, is that no-one, absolutely no-one, can defend what happened at the Ethiad. DM must have shed some tears last night and has a massive decision to make this week.
I've gone with sack him now, I don't consider it knee jerk as we have been either poor or ok for some time with neither poor or ok yielding any points. I would be happy to have NA as caretaker until someone suitable is in place, however I would understand if the board if they have not identified a candidate already kept CH antipathy had. Surely though they will have ssomeone in mind already, it's just a question of when can they get him? I've had my doubts about CH since 2/3 of the way through last season, and have tried to believe that he could do a job for us but in the end you just can't polish a turd! Bah!
That's the thing though, if the board act immediately the fans will for the main be unified behind the New appointment simply because they are relieved it's not CH. Bah!
I give him the West Ham game, purely out of generosity. I said yesterday that the team has no leaders. We need a leader on the side line and on the pitch. Neither is evident to me. The team needs a good bollocking. In his interview yesterday Rusty said that CH hadn't given them one. This is the measure of CH - of course he's hurting, but for the players to play for him he needs to show that he's not timidly upset, he's effing furious. He needs to have a Mach 10 epi on them all about how much it hurts and get them pumped up, firing on all cylinders, not blubbing in the corner like a lad who has just lost at conkers.
Perhaps that's the problem though, CH is too nice. We all know he's a nice guy but perhaps we need someone who is going to bollock the players when they need it and get them fired up.
This, from Vital Norwich, more or less mirrors my take on things. http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=337638
Two incredibly lack lustre performances and 11 -0 on aggregate to the Manchester clubs in five days and I had the joy of being at both. Many may think this is crazy but I've still gone for give him till Christmas (the last option is nonsensical for any team/manager). One of the reasons is that as posted elsewhere, heavy defeats may act as a catalyst(one of which may be the sack) but also for improved performances. A heavy defeat should not determine whether a manager gets the sack, but how he gets the team to respond over the next few games, this is probably the reason that Wigan kept hold on Martinez, who experienced many heavy losses in successive games during his tenure. The notion that everyone would be behind a new manager is in all probability unlikely for many reasons and highly dependent upon who that person would be. Also I like the fact that CH says we (him and the players) have let the fans down. This is an indictment on the players and their attitude, but why he should rant is beyond me, that would show a complete lack of sports psychology about how to get the most out of players and how does anyone know what is said. It seems evident that the players are more than aware of the mistakes being made e.g. we will bring the players in and look at the mistakes, giving them a very clear message. t is perfectly feasible given some of the performances this season for CH to continue to shape and build the team - I still hope he gets the chance.
When asked whether CH had delivered a bollocking, Rusty actually said "what would be the point?", and he went on to explain that the players already felt as bad as they could possibly feel. Whilst knowing that he delivered a good bollocking may help satisfy the bloodlust of fans, it is nonsense to suggest that any good manager should be delivering one. Quite the opposite. A good manager will know when it is not going to be the most productive action. Roy Keane said recently that the times when it hurt the most was when SAF was quiet after a game and the players knew they had really let him down.
Longsightcanary, couldn't agree more; spot on. Sacking Chris should be a last resort. I think what most of us really want is the team to succeed under him but if this rally can't happen then we will have to review the gravity of our situation at Christmas and consider taking the risk of changing managers. I don't think people should assume that sacking Chris will automatically bring about improvement, it would be a very risky strategy with no way back so it should only be employed as a last resort.
CH is not SAF - I know whose silence I'd be afraid of, and that's why a good bollocking from CH might work. The nicest man in football suddenly goes rag on you? I'd listen.
Yeah, I seem to remember it was Keane who also said that SAF's notorious bollockings were often because of the performance even when they were ahead - the point being you bollock when the players don't know they're playing badly. Here, it is pretty bloody obvious...
Can someone tell me, where does the notion that CH is the nicest guy in football? Surely this is merely suppostion
Every time I watch the team, the commentators say one of the following "CH, you couldn't meet a nicer man in football..." "CH, one of the true gents of the game..." etc. So, it's kind of stuck (With me at least)
I guess I meant yes he has a reputation as a nice bloke, but why does that mean he doesn't tear players a new one from time to time
