CasaStreets
Full Member
Posted about this in the Ole interview review and I think it needs a thread.
In Ole's interview, he says being more aggressive than his squad allowed ultimately cost him his job. He felt the fans demanded a more aggressive style and wanted to shift away from counter-attacking. It became clear the team couldn't maintain standards when he shifted to more attacking football.
EtH is playing extremely open football that it's clear our squad can't support. We don't press well enough up top. Our CBs aren't fast enough to push high up. That's exposing Casemiro, who hasn't got the legs to cover the gap that's exposed between front and back.
My question is whether Ole was right. Had he reached a point where better football was expected and required for the fans to continue supporting him? And looking forward, how long would you give a manager (EtH or new manager) who plays defensive counter-attacking football, consistently finishes top 4 or 5 (qualifies for CL), but never challenges for the title?
In Ole's interview, he says being more aggressive than his squad allowed ultimately cost him his job. He felt the fans demanded a more aggressive style and wanted to shift away from counter-attacking. It became clear the team couldn't maintain standards when he shifted to more attacking football.
EtH is playing extremely open football that it's clear our squad can't support. We don't press well enough up top. Our CBs aren't fast enough to push high up. That's exposing Casemiro, who hasn't got the legs to cover the gap that's exposed between front and back.
My question is whether Ole was right. Had he reached a point where better football was expected and required for the fans to continue supporting him? And looking forward, how long would you give a manager (EtH or new manager) who plays defensive counter-attacking football, consistently finishes top 4 or 5 (qualifies for CL), but never challenges for the title?