I am 100% with the thought of sticking with the manager and giving him time. Absolutely.
My issue is when you implement this approach with the "wrong" manager. I would have loved sticking with Poch and see his 2.0 team. With Ange, he is not the manager you want to stuck with. He's been found tactically, when he faces good managers and team who are discipline, well-drilled, flexible with their manager's tactics and changes, he struggles and looks like a checkers player playing chess with "real" chess master. His changes and subs are "try and see" what happens. No tactical nuances to what he is trying to do.
That's why, also, I would never blame the players. I can put 10% on them if they have a bad game or two. But remember those are professional players and implement what the manager draws. They do that all their lives. How can Ipswich players looks so organized and discipline? Fulham's? Bournemouth? No way these players are better than ours. But they are well-coached, well-drilled, they know what the manager tactics are, they are trained enough to respond when the manager makes tactical changes.
Now someone tell me, does this apply to Ange? My opinion is, NO. After almost a year and a half, I do not see that. You have the good/great performance here or there, but the norm is struggle, sluggish, boring, no-ideas, headless chicken type of performance. List for me the matches where his changes turned a game around (tactical changes please, not the Son one where he only made a sub for fitness reason). The Man City result is an anomaly. City were (maybe still) is a bad spill where many teams take advantage of them. So we didn't do something totally out of order here. I am happy with the result, but I would take a loss to ManC and wins against Ipswich, Fulham, and Bournemouth any day.
Give me a manager with tactical knowledge, flexibility, knowing how to read games, impact games, manage the squad, find solutions when injuries/suspensions pile up. I don't care about attacking, entertaining, defensive debate. Just a manager who manages the team, the matches, the competitions, and of course the board. It can be done, Poch did it to some extent. Someone like Nagelsman is one I believe can do it. Not that I call for JN, but it was an example of possible alternatives since the big names like Kloppe are out of the question. The Breighton guy look promising though
My issue is when you implement this approach with the "wrong" manager. I would have loved sticking with Poch and see his 2.0 team. With Ange, he is not the manager you want to stuck with. He's been found tactically, when he faces good managers and team who are discipline, well-drilled, flexible with their manager's tactics and changes, he struggles and looks like a checkers player playing chess with "real" chess master. His changes and subs are "try and see" what happens. No tactical nuances to what he is trying to do.
That's why, also, I would never blame the players. I can put 10% on them if they have a bad game or two. But remember those are professional players and implement what the manager draws. They do that all their lives. How can Ipswich players looks so organized and discipline? Fulham's? Bournemouth? No way these players are better than ours. But they are well-coached, well-drilled, they know what the manager tactics are, they are trained enough to respond when the manager makes tactical changes.
Now someone tell me, does this apply to Ange? My opinion is, NO. After almost a year and a half, I do not see that. You have the good/great performance here or there, but the norm is struggle, sluggish, boring, no-ideas, headless chicken type of performance. List for me the matches where his changes turned a game around (tactical changes please, not the Son one where he only made a sub for fitness reason). The Man City result is an anomaly. City were (maybe still) is a bad spill where many teams take advantage of them. So we didn't do something totally out of order here. I am happy with the result, but I would take a loss to ManC and wins against Ipswich, Fulham, and Bournemouth any day.
Give me a manager with tactical knowledge, flexibility, knowing how to read games, impact games, manage the squad, find solutions when injuries/suspensions pile up. I don't care about attacking, entertaining, defensive debate. Just a manager who manages the team, the matches, the competitions, and of course the board. It can be done, Poch did it to some extent. Someone like Nagelsman is one I believe can do it. Not that I call for JN, but it was an example of possible alternatives since the big names like Kloppe are out of the question. The Breighton guy look promising though
