Kid Icarus

I wasn't talking about you specifically, I haven't even seen your posts in order to take them out of context. That said, when the bar for better is as high as Howe has set it, it does strike me as odd that people think it's a risk worth taking when you also have limited faith in the people trying to hire better than what we already have.

The maddest thing I'm seeing at the moment is the same people saying we should bin Howe saying that they also don't trust the board to hire a replacement. It's not often I'm lost for words.

On scale of points rather than position you only need to look at Guardiola and Klopp in their transition seasons. Man City went from 91 points in 1st to 71 points in 3rd (-20 points), Liverpool went from 92 points in 2nd to 69 points in 5th (-23 points) We're looking at a similar fall off, from 66 points to I dunno, ~50 odd points. These are clubs with more or less unlimited resources with managers who are seen as the best around. Man City spent £500m in that January just to ensure Champions League, they now look like having a decent chance of winning the league. Liverpool spent £145m in the summer after they finished 5th and bounced back to 82 points in 3rd, setting them up to 84 points in 1st the following season under Slot.

There are also hypotheticals and metrics that are fixable that would have us 2nd or 5th or whatever. The reality is that we are where we are.

You might have a point there actually. Not sure.

Can't count anything sold to Saudi in our accounting, so really only worth doing just to cut all losses.

The manager whose cv with us reads: saved us from very likely relegation, first trophy in 55 odd years and our first domestic trophy in 70 years, qualified for the Champions League twice, finished 4th, 7th, 5th, another final, a semi final, a couple of quarter finals, huge wins and memorable performances against almost any team you wish to mention...all with the 8th highest wage bill in the league. Who stepped up in the summer when the club was in the shit with no CEO, no DoF, and moved into a role that isn't his, while also doing his usual job and all while the owners sat on their hands. He's set the club back and potentially caused irreparable damage... Then when the notion of entitlement is brought up it's scoffed at and him stepping up in the summer is spun as him having full control and backing by the owners. What a joke man.

The fact this question is being asked at all tells you a lot about the quality of this season imo. 3 points between 6th and 11th with 6 games left is crazy and telling about the amount of inconsistent teams there have been this season. We shouldn't have had as poor season as we've had and still only be 6 points off 6th. We're about the 10th comment down, which I think is quite telling. http://youtube.com/post/UgkxNyXOMbH_2j2XwWgZnYf8uxff6yc81QyN

Go on then, I'll humour you. And that's just by focusing solely on the defence and ignoring how threat up front=defensive solidity. The failures in the market there, particularly with Isak shouldn't need explaining.

Canny funny tbf. Give it enough time and you'll flip-flop right back again Dokko.

That one year of evidence when they were relegated, or all the other seasons of evidence where he quite often turned it around?

Whoever comes on as sub is usually worse, so yeah. Yeah, I might have to change my username so no one remembers what a complete heed the bahl I am. Would be a nightmare that wouldn't it?

I think it does, but agree that they're a bit pointless

I'd check the post before your notes.

It's not meant to be a winner, but if Howe's seeing who's in form in training, picks his team accordingly, and the subs that come on aren't delivering the goods, to still keep criticising him for not making subs makes no sense.

Solely to blame for not bringing them on. Solely to blame for bringing them on and them not performing, got it.

I'd have more sympathy with the subs argument if I hadn't watched subs then come on and be absolutely shit all season. The starting line up surely matters more and that changes all the time.

Howe had a power struggle with one DoF. The one who reportedly had a power struggle with everyone and did the sum total of fuck all in his time here. The other DoF had such a power struggle with Howe that according to mutiple reports he wanted to bring him to Man United and ironically walked out because he lost that power struggle and they got Amorim instead.

You're making a distinction without a difference. Of course their roles and how they're criticised are different, but they're not disconnected, the actions of the ownership effects everything - that's why you get expressions like 'the fish rots from the head'

This is just daft at this point

They took a year to replace the CEO, 6 months to replace a DoF that left, and their CEO and DoF contingency plan in the summer was 'okay, you do it' to 3 people with no CEO or DoF experience.

We shouldn't, the point is we shouldn't replace Howe.

Tbh I've got no idea what you even mean by completely different?

When has anyone below executive level been solely to blame for negatively impacting on the owners' ability to do their jobs? If that had happened (like PIF's actions have negatively impacted those below them) then it would be fair enough. As far as I can tell it's never happened.

I'm not ignoring it, it's that I don't think they're completely different things at all.