it never ceases to amaze me that people trot out this argument about our results against the top 4 sides
They finished above everybody - because they have better teams - you do know that's how it works, right?
The team who beat us by one point we split the points with, the team who finished one place below us, we had the points balance over - why is this ignored?
If we had beaten all of the top sides and finished 4th, I would be calling for his head as well, because that would have meant we were losing more games against inferior opposition.
Everyone recognises the impact of a manager on a team, and blames HR on the results during "The period of uncertainty" between Capello resigning and the new England manager being appointed. So lets blame it on one man, its simpler that way.
Yet whilst everyone recognises how a good manager can inspire a team of players to gel, a large number of people happily ignore that those individuals, when they see the potential loss of their inspirational manager, can also cease to perform effectively - when THEY (the team) think they might be losing him. To fail to understand this, simply shows how few people actually recognise the cohesive effect a good manager can have.
The team now have him back - and you still want to get rid of him?
Yeah, good call.
But, you argue, we will replace him with a vibrant exciting manager who will inspire through his brilliance and tactical acumen! What like Chelsea did with AVB?
Dont look to the past and quote our past failures and past glories - look to the future and be bold................cry the knowledgeable and wise
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
"The only thing needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"