Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around.
Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved.
So one manager gets 5 points from eight games in a harder division, but with a better squad. Performances weren't exactly good, there seemed to be no new manager "bounce", and the squad's general attitude didn't seem to improve that much, but we had been in free-fall most of the season to be fair.
Its pretty hard to show an improvement in form when five of your eight fixtures are Chelsea (h), Liverpool (a), Spuds (a), Villa (a) and Stoke (a).
It's pretty hard to get a seriously depleted squad of kids and players who were so awful the previous season that they got relegated to play well enough to get 22 points from nine games. Especially when you've had no money to spend, your club is in the middle of a crisis/takeover, you're not a permanent manager and if the takeover happens could be out of a job, etc, etc, etc.
Like I said, it's a toss up between them. Neither are proven good managers, we could do better.
To state it implicitly, in case anyone is in any doubt: I am not saying Hughton is the man for the job, I am simply saying that his record is at least comparable to Shearer's, yet no-one thinks he is good enough whereas a lot of people think Shearer is good enough for some reason. That reason is nothing to do with his record as a manager, it is based upon something else entirely.
Personally I'm inclined to think just about any manager could do as well as he's done, we simply have far better players then most other teams in this league.
Not saying we need to replace Hughton right now obviously. But long term I'd have Shearer over Hughton any day.
Why? Based upon what?
Because he's a geordie presumably. There can't be any other reason.
there are other reasons, but right now I'd rather have Hughton