West Ham comparisons and continuity

I understand and agree with the point about continuity and long termism but surely that is in the context of giving a new manager 2-3 years rather than sacking them if things don't go right immediately? So, West Ham were right to give Pardew time to get it right (and by the way they did get to the play off final in his first season didn't they, so its not like he was a total disaster). But there is no comparison with WH in NW's case - he has been here 5 years which is more than enough time to buy players and get them playing the way he wants. How do the Worthy inners think he will surprise us after 5 years - is he suddenly going to develop into a superb man manager or tactician?

Whilst we have undeniably had some good times in his time, the question is whether we are likely to improve or get worse if he stays? The signs are not good, frankly how we are as high as 10th is a complete mystery to me. Barry Skipper said there's a fine line between winning and losing which is often very true but the fact is on too many occasions this season there has been a huge gulf between winning and losing and we have been at the wrong end of the gulf.

If memory serves me this is the first season in the 2nd tier of football (apart from the season he took over) that we haven't at any stage looked remotely likely to get in a play off spot - pre NW, we typically got into a decent position and then faded badly. Don't forgot, during that time we also had next to no money to invest in players unlike NW and suffered badly because of injuries to Eadie & Bellamy.

Rant over, back to mellowness.

Posted By: Mellow Yellow, Mar 9, 12:27:00