I agree that would not look good at all, and agree that he has to get some results in order to show that we can beat the big sides again, but as I say, if we sack a manager every time they have a bad run, then we'll have a new manager every year and end up going round in circles. Well, more a downward spiral than a circle, as no manager will want to come to us knowing that he will be fired as soon as he loses a few games against the teams we nearly always lose against. Despite necessary talk of wanting instant success, of course all managers actually want (and indeed need) time to mould the squad into what they want, both in terms of personnel and style / attitude, and that typically takes at least a couple of years. As has been said before, if woolwich had fired legohead years ago on any of the numerous occasions when they had a few bad results and the media said he was in danger, where would they be now? I'm not for a moment saying that Ange can or will necessarily achieve similar, I'm just saying that whoever we appoint as our manager, we need to give them at least a couple of seasons before we decide it isn't working, otherwise we are just going round in circles. You do get the odd exception like Nuno, which was obviously a desperate appointment and bad fit from day 1 (and don't even get me started on the pathetic coward Conte), but generally speaking, most successful clubs give their managers a fair crack of the whip rather than knee-jerking. Of course there must be a line - if he lost 10 games in a row then obviously he'd be out - but losing 3 of your first 6 games of the season, and those 3 being against the top sides, is not sufficient for me as it is a line that would probably be crossed pretty much every season at some point.