How fickle are you ?

[LC_]

[Ska Junkie]

2 hours ago, allyolly said:

Opinions like this can only be driven from some sort of weird personal agenda. Pathetic. 

No agenda here ally just one very unhappy supporter. I do think SL's comment was particularly poor but have no agenda whatsoever.

[Loco Rojo]

2 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

It simply won't happen. If I say no, you'll come back with "what if he wins 20 in a row". 

Let's just say I'd be happen to be proven utterly wrong but I've seen enough footy to know when I see a dud. Most of the time. 

The original post was based on a hypothetical possibility which I'm just adding to - genuine question - would your view be any different if it didn't happen?

I'm interested because it seems that regardless of what might be, he has no chance of winning the fans back now.

[BobBobSuperBob]

10 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

So if he did win the next 2, 3 or 4 and then went on to win more, which you could argue might demonstrate competence and leadership (arguably required to get out of this mess) would your view be different?

Reading the views on here, it won't matter if LJ won the next 50 games, it wouldn't be enough to win the fans back so he may as well walk now.

I do wonder when Otib will start to question the players blame in all this when somewhere along the line they have to take some accountability for what happens on the pitch?

Been about six threads on this including individuals 

[Loco Rojo]

1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Been about six threads on this including individuals 

Only six? Should be more. I might spot them.

[cidered abroad]

14 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

So if he did win the next 2, 3 or 4 and then went on to win more, which you could argue might demonstrate competence and leadership (arguably required to get out of this mess) would your view be different?

Reading the views on here, it won't matter if LJ won the next 50 games, it wouldn't be enough to win the fans back so he may as well walk now.

I do wonder when Otib will start to question the players blame in all this when somewhere along the line they have to take some accountability for what happens on the pitch?

An army is led by the general(s) and not by the privates.

A football team is led by it's manager/head coach and not the individuals of the team.

Why? Because in an army, there would be several thousand different ways if the privates were in charge and in football anything up to 18 players.

And that is why all of the responsibility for this mess is laid at Johnson's door. He should not be massaging his ego, expecting the decision to be made by Lansdown. If Johnson had any honesty and decency, he would resign now. 

[Loco Rojo]

10 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

An army is led by the general(s) and not by the privates.

A football team is led by it's manager/head coach and not the individuals of the team.

Why? Because in an army, there would be several thousand different ways if the privates were in charge and in football anything up to 18 players.

And that is why all of the responsibility for this mess is laid at Johnson's door. He should not be massaging his ego, expecting the decision to be made by Lansdown. If Johnson had any honesty and decency, he would resign now. 

Appreciate your initial point too but armies aren't made up of sheep. They are made of individuals who can adapt are creative and can respond when initial plans (in this case, managers tactics) aren't working. They can't go back to the training ground in the heat of the moment during the 90 minutes on the pitch. When it isn't working armies adapt, individuals step up and think outside the box, improvise and overcome to meet the challenge. The players (in the context of football) are no different and we've all witnessed plenty of individual performances during this awful run when they aren't putting in he performances they are easily capable of and we've all seen them do and for this reason I blame them also for this.