Aye, I get that. I just look at say, Southampton or Brighton, and no way do they have better players than we do, and yet they're capable of being far more expansive than we are.
That works when you are getting results. It's an all or nothing approach. I wouldn't have an issue with a George Graham winning every game 1-0 approach. Losing as many 1-0 as winning them I do. Most match going fans see our team at home, we've lost as many as we've won. It's not pretty, amongst that there's been some highs- Watford, Villa, West Ham, some awful Palace, Arsenal, Brentford, Leeds and some ok Newcastle, Everton and some means to an attempted end like Chelsea and Liverpool. On balance it's not enjoyable I say that with the self awareness of watching us play in Div4 and 3 and for the vast majority of time what is now the Championship, but then was being charged football not 'entertainment' prices
This is exactly where I am.
Would we be backing Lage then if we were bottom 6 but playing attractive football?
You do so often read what isn't written. It all depends on why and how we got there. He was brutally let down by the board and perhaps he is a victim of his own success, or to paraphrase YW we've just regressed to the mean. I think my overarching view is we had a great chance to have a great season and for that we have the manager to thank, the fact that we probably won’t we have the manager to blame.
If the progress was there and we were playing expansively but maybe a piece or two was missing that could be improved on, then absolutely yes.
I mean look at Sunday. We had one shot after we conceded. One. Not even pot shots from outside the box. Never even looked like scoring.
That's the point I was trying to make, it's a sliding scale between entertainment and results with positive and negative axis on both.
Completely agree. United was superb, no idea why we’ve been set up and sent out to play so poorly for most of the time outside of this. I am surprised that so many blame this primarily on the players (though we all agree squad development has been lamentable). Many of them are not just good but they’re smart and diligent so the idea that they’re too limited to take on new ideas and the desirable is a whole scale clear out to bring in players capable of adapting to Lage baffles me. Surely the desirable is one change to a leader who can get them playing as they have and can? You’ve got to be wedded to a contrary position to be sitting through these games thinking we should expect no better, or anticipate that things are likely to improve. There is simply no evidence to suggest that whatsoever.
