SSN seem to reckon it's a done deal. An excellent short-term solution. Will keep them up and do well for them no doubt. I still have reservations on his ability to stabilise club's long-term esp. his ability to put things in place to not allow the club to fall after he leaves though.
Grant, Houiller, Hodgson all in my opinion didn't necessarily have the time they needed to make their mark. A few years back it would have seemed crazy to consider sacking a manager after only a few months in the job (look at Ferguson and even O'Neil and the starts that they made). Now sacking when instant results don't come seems the norm. Crazy.
What about us sacking Sousa for Sven, was that a "crazy" decision?
We don't see what's going on behind the scenes and how much the manager gets involved. I would imagine it's clear to most chairman (who aren't Mike Ashley) when you have a manager who is very intelligent in his approach and you can see coming good, but just isn't getting results (the main reason SAF was kept in the job so long was because it was obvious how great the youth team with Beckham, Scholes, Giggs etc. he built were) and therfore needs time, compared to when you have a manager who is clearly cluess (i.e. with Sousa he did no fitness training, so all our players were horribly unfit and getting cramp after 70mins etc.) and therefore needs getting rid of asap.
The turnaround in performance and morale means that I can't argue with your point. Bringing Sven in seems to have had an immediate impact and long may it continue! My point is that this is not going to happen with every manager and that they should be given a bit longer to make an impact if needed. I'm also aware that things have changed in the last few years and maybe i am living in the past a little and being unrealistic!
Sir Alex's 1st season wasn't the best and they were expected to win things in his 2nd (think they were runners up)...- I may be wrong but I'm not sure the players you talked about were old enough to be in the youth team then... I also remember the protests at Filbert Street against O'Neil (v Sheff Utd i think) but in both of these cases the manager was given more time.
I've just seen this on the BBC I was staggered that he would take this firstly with all due respect to West Ham I would have thought he was looking for a bigger club with more money to spend. Secondly and the bigger reason I would have thought it will be only a mater of a small amount of time before he has a major bust up with Gould, Sullavan and Brady. It will be interesting to see, I work with a West Ham fan and when the rumors started I said I did not think there was any chance this would happen.
IMO he would be considered a bit of a risk at the moment for a 'bigger club'. Having left Villa in a bit of a hole just before the season started, I reckon he's harmed his stock a little. There are a few 'bigger' clubs than Villa, but apart from one in crisis (i.e. Liverpool) he would do well to get one of those jobs at the moment without some rebuilding of his reputation, West Ham could be the chance he needs to do this. He has always brought success in the short term as a manager, but big clubs expect more than short term success before falling out with the board and would see him as a bit of a risk. This is all IMO of course .
Yes and my point is that sometimes it's easy to tell the manager won't turn it around. How do you know Grant's methods? How do you know that Grant clearly isn't out of his depth and the chairmen at West Ham can't see that? If the chairman at West Ham feels that after seeing the methods and ideas that Grant has shown in the 6 months he's been there, he cannot see Grant turning it around, then it would be idiotic for the chairman not to sack him.
Using it as a stepping stone for when a bigger job becomes available, ie Man U
I don't think he'll get the Man U job, he'll just want to be in the frame.Is that before or after Allardyce gets the Real Madrid job?
The turnaround in performance and morale means that I can't argue with your point. Bringing Sven in seems to have had an immediate impact and long may it continue! My point is that this is not going to happen with every manager and that they should be given a bit longer to make an impact if needed. I'm also aware that things have changed in the last few years and maybe i am living in the past a little and being unrealistic!
Sir Alex's 1st season wasn't the best and they were expected to win things in his 2nd (think they were runners up)...- I may be wrong but I'm not sure the players you talked about were old enough to be in the youth team then... I also remember the protests at Filbert Street against O'Neil (v Sheff Utd i think) but in both of these cases the manager was given more time.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |