And if they do exactly that he's gone by the end of the season. I mean, why are we pretending like the influence of a manager is so low that it's impossible to tell how good of a job he's doing? Why do we want to sack everyone, bring in new people and start fresh but keep the manager and give him another year? I just don't understand this fascination with managers. Surely just because manager's influence in transfers will hopefully be much lower under new structure it doesn't mean anything changes regarding man management, tactics, in game management skill requirements, all which he seems to be failing at. If it was any other position at the club nobody would be asking for second chances after this disastrous season.
Well put. The way many find excuses for manager and manager only and not for others is astonishing.
The players never get any slack for playing under constantly changing/not good enough managers/possibly having personal problems etc etc - 1-2 bad seasons and they are “not good enough” if not “championship level”. And no excuses since they “earn a lot”
The executives never get any slack for having to work under bad owners/in a difficult market etc etc, 1-2 unsuccessful transfer windows. They fail and must be out, no excuses.
But the manager could not possibly be not good enough and cannot be judged until after everyone above and below him is world class and not injured. His meager salary and transfer budget is just compensation for working under such a horrible set up.
I mean I could kinda understand it if he had a CV of young Jose/Fergie/Klopp etc. But he does not. He has a good CV and deserved a chance to manage at higher level than Ajax, but PL seems to be a step too far for him at the moment (although he is not a young manager any more). He is not the first and not the last, no shame in it.
People bring up Arteta etc but 95-99% of the time when a manger is underperforming to the same degree as EtH sacking him turns out to be a correct decision.