Oh maaaan, I think you're going too much the other way in trying to give balance to the Sherwood debate. FYI I don't hate him, I was espousing the virtues of his style of management a few weeks into his reign. So my criticisms aren't because I don't like him but more because I think he's clearly getting an easier ride than the guy he replaced.
With his mates, with Ashton and the like, Sherwood can be a hoot I'm sure. In a way AVB never is. If you're a Daily Mail journo you'd never want to go for a beer with AVB for sure. But with some of the other school of journalists, the more tactical, the less 'the game is about passion', Sherwood has straight batted their questions in the same manner you would describe AVB as being 'prickly'.
As for it being 'the law', I think that's nonsense. AVB isn't the only manager to say the fans need to get behind the team more (You remember Sherwood arguing with a fan mid-game to do the exact same thing right?) and he isn't the only manager to call out the press on their bull****. He probably is one of the only managers that I can remember though that had his quotes deliberately mis-represented in order to suit the tone of an opinion piece questioning his character. I can't think of any real, tangible reason that would suggest that AVB should not be allowed to correct them publicly and show them up for what they are.
Especially when Tim's outburst post Chelsea (which I thought was fantastic, BTW) was far, far more critical of the players than AVB has ever been. He has constantly distanced himself from the players in the manner of the master Harry. Does he get opinion pieces questioning his personal character in the way AVB did? Nah. He's a bit of a loveable rogue. He's passionate. He's English. He gets us. Woopdidoo for Sherwood understanding the politics of getting the Daily Mail on his side. If this is the criteria we are looking for in a manager, we have fallen a long way for sure.
The funny thing is I was actually really impressed with Sherwood's political acumen in getting the job, in getting the contract he wanted, and getting to see out the transfer window how he wanted it. I thought it showed the signs of a winner, who as you say, 'gets' what it takes to succeed in this world. But I think what's been shown is that being a good political operator doesn't equate to being as good as a manager. I myself am probably much better in job interviews and networking than I am at actually doing the job - I could easily be back in the sticks where I grew up rather than the position I am in now, but I made good decisions and knew how to get people on side. Doesn't mean I'm a fantastic operator in what I do. I mean I might be. But I don't think Sherwood's political skill means he is a good manager. He's just a good politician with no managerial experience.
Just to finish off this post, if you're saying the guy that throws his gilet to the floor in a fit of rage because the opposition has breached the high line, or the guy that has to sit in the stands because he admitted himself he can't control himself and doesn't want to get in to trouble, is the guy with the temperamental suitability for the job, then I just have to strongly disagree.
Mourinho had problems with the press in Italy and Spain
