Hmm - several points:

1. Grant was probably appointed because he was the cheapest option: it's how many ex-players get their first job in management, after all.

2. Take your point on Bryan Robson - but Megson? Did ok at Blackpool, well at Stockport, and was an out-and-out success at West Brom. Sure, he failed at Forest: but to my mind, his heart wasn't so much never in it there as still at the Hawthorns, and unable to come to terms with his exit there. He definitely deserves another crack at it.

3. Don't forget that for every Robson, Peter Grant, John Barnes or Chris Waddle there's also Roy Keane, Mark Hughes or Paul Ince. Moreover, it strikes me that many, many managers struggle badly in their first job, but go on to get much better with the more experience they gain. Megson's a good example of this; heck, even Bobby Robson had a nightmare in his first post at Fulham.

Ultimately, pretty much every boss reaches a sell-by date (eg. Dalglish, Graham, Wilkinson, Reid, even Sir Bobby: all very successful at their peak) - but in general, only truly fantastic ones such as Fergie or O'Neill are an immediate success - and only the really bad ones (Hamilton, Ball (God rest his soul), Roeder) fail wherever they go.

4. Oh, one last point: although I absolutely agree we should never have taken such a gamble in the first place, there are no guarantees. Who thought, for example, that Phil Parkinson would be such a disaster at Hull after being so brilliant with Colchester? Moreover, given how troubled our off-field position is, it's likely most managers would struggle here: indeed, it's frequently forgotten that football teams generally only do well when the situation in the boardroom is healthy and stable, and struggle badly when it isn't. Cue the finger being pointed at the manager, even when it's often not really his fault at all.

Posted By: thebigfeller, Oct 1, 08:57:26