deep blue

He can be a bit quirky, but that's the fun side of him coming through. That was important for squad solidarity during our Prem win. In fact, he has a very strong character and I'm sure he would impart standards in the club again and command respect from the players. That's not to say I'm certain it would be a good appointment. It certainly would involve some risk. The possibility of a previous player coming back and tarnishing his reputation, his inexperience etc. But him being an avid City fan means he would be really motivated to succeed and to turn the club round, and his ambition surely would be for the long term, viewing us as a club that belongs in the Prem rather than accepting our current position. I can see him being his own man, managing the team on his own terms. On balance I think I'd like to see him have a go. At this stage, given our current position and our unattractiveness to proven managers, I think any choice will be a risk ... I'd rather go for a bold one.

Only my opinion, but I don't see Fuchs as a yes man. I think he has far too much strength of character.

Exactly!!

Fantastic quote and, unfortunately, so true.

In what way was it "awfully drafted"?

Apologies for my rant. Touched a raw nerve.

Some of you can't resist these cheap ageist comments. Will you please stop as it insults the diehard fans who have actually been stauch supporters of the club a hell of a lot longer than the likes of you. I've been a strong, lifelong supporter since the mid 50s. I was one of the first on here to call out Rodgers and sent several emails to the board imploring them to sack him, starting from after the first few games of his relegation season.

It's been widely suspected on here that all our recent managers have been following instructions from above as to the style of the team and the selections. I get it up to a point, but surely our current manager had so little to lose by being brave, ignoring Top/Rudkin, and playing what HE thought was best. Has anyone an explanation for this? If every manager we employ follows the same track as the last few then we are never going to get out of this mess.

Is there any credible evidence for this view? I am very old but have always believed in the science on this issue, as do almost all of my similarly-aged friends.

Of course the youngsters aren't going to bail us out of this. You have to be on the pitch to have any chance of affecting things.

Those who say that the players take all the blame and the manager none should consider that there are managers of strong character who would be able to take difficult decisions and to instill confidence, effort and standards into the players. Rowett isn't of that ilk, whereas MON, Pearson, and more recently Maresca, would be able to do that. So Rowett has failed in his time here. I guess the problem is that Top won't appoint a manager who has the balls to take his own decisions; therein lies our dilemma.

Interesting topic. I've been aware for sometime how many of our recent players seem to improve when they move to other clubs, or new recruits not so effective as with their former clubs. The recent period of decline in so many of our players coincides roughly with 3 things - the end of Rodgers' first year with us, after he was given a huge contract and more freedom to boss all aspects of our football philosophy, notably our transfer policy - the death of our owner and his son taking over - the new super training ground. Thinking of Pearson's standards and his focus on character of recruits, I suppose by this time there were also so few of the Pearson-recruited Premiership winners still with us who could encourage the same standards.

As long as there are adequate checks in place, shouldn't it be anyone's right to decide they want their suffering to end? Why should others who object to the principle have the right to deny that right to the suffering person?

You've pinpointed the moment exactly.

Barnes seems to have prospered at Newcastle; seems to me to be more aggressive around the box. Could the problem have had more to do with Rodgers' "coaching" than Barnes' character deficiencies?

We've surely reached the point where we have to take the risk and play a few more of the youngsters. It's expecting a lot of them but at least they have some experience of playing together and know each other's game. One thing that's undeniable is they'll bring more energy and fight into the team, and that is sorely needed now.

Footballing, and always been, meat and potatoes at heart. I think we've suffered from managers who are too invested in their philosophies and who bypass some of the basics in the game (fitness & effort, tackling hard, fighting for the ball, making yourself available for a pass, etc).

Contributers on here have differing views on the current predicament, blaming the club hierarchy or the manager, but most lay much of the blame at the door of the players and hold them in disrespect (I have done too). But, in defence of the players, take a step back and consider the following issues: - The apparently inadequate fitness regime - Poor personal development of players - The occasional careless handling of injuries during the game - Amateurish team selection - Team formation and style that doesn't suit the squad - Poor substitution decisions - Poor transfer dealings which weaken the squad I'm sure I've missed some out. With the odd exception, these have been a constant of our management team over the last 5 years. Add in the understandable negativity of the crowd during matches and the poisonous backdrop of the apparent lack of interest and incompetence of Top and his minions. If you were a player who started off by putting everything into your performance on the pitch but you felt your efforts were being undermined match after match by the above failings, it's understandable that you would start to get disenchanted and disinterested, that your performance would begin to drop, that the squad togetherness would start to erode, and there would be fallings-out with the manager. Could that explain our current demise on the pitch, and does that not to some extent excuse the players? It could certainly explain why some players look to be "bad eggs". Maybe they tend to be the more experienced one who are more aware of the failings compared to previous clubs they've represented.

I'm of the same age group as the elderly aunt and I completely agree. In our worst lows over the last 70 years there has never been a disconnect so bad between club directors and fans, and never such a forlorn feeling among those fans who can see the way things are going.

Well said, esp the last sentence. This should be mandatory for all contributions. All this stuff is doing my head in, and not needed on top of the whole awful situation currently with the club. 🙂😥

Kingy may not be an experienced manager, and didn't want the job, but surely he should have done better. He is a hugely experienced professional ex-footballer and should have much more nous about how matches pan out. Most people on here saw immediately the error in trying to hang on to a lead instead of continuing to look for goals, having witnessed so frequently over tha last few years and managers that this strategy almost always fails. When bringing on Lascelles it was obvious that should have been as a straight replacement for Okoli, not as a means to weaken our attacking intent. And as for bringing on Ayew ... Why are ex-footballers with so much match experience over the years unable to show the same awareness?

The wrong choice to be a captain, too; he just doesn't have the presence of a captain on the field (not that we have any other candidates).

Can't understand why Page isn't getting on the pitch earlier, even. Surely he's a better option than most of those on the field?

He picked him in the team ahead of Aluko. Is that clear enough for you?