To be fair Foden was the best player in the Premier League last season and still always was allowed to play with a level of freedom. Admittedly he has been off the boil this season.

With an option so him and Hedges are nice easy ways to avoid signing new players and to keep the cost down. Doesnt matter than neither are good enough, the priority is to cut costs. Im guessing from another thumbs down that you are still expecting us to have a successful summer.

You are the sole member of the Markanday fan club. Nowhere near good enough. No but he will be cheap which is all that matters.

The Lancashire Telegraph have reported how numerous players havent been even spoken to regarding new deals, Travis included. The owners must have blocked new deals.

Its one of them where any team he would have picked would have had too much against really poor opposition. People pick apart the team and the squad but it was never going to matter, an easy win was always on the cards. The concerns would be when we play anyone who is any good. Some of his selections were strange, Rashford has struggled and hasnt had the sudden renaiscance that the media seem to want to portray since joining Villa and Foden has had a poor season and isnt a wide man. Henderson even being in the squad ahead of Wharton and Gallagher is just very odd. The defence will be a major concern beyond any selection questions. Guehi surely has to play but even then, hes not a top centre back and hes the best we have. The fact that a 32 year old Dan Burn for all of his limitations is starting, that isnt happening for the main contenders for the World Cup. Walker is past it but tonight, average or past their best defenders could in the main rest easy against a poor side, although even then they had the odd wobble.

Typical qualifier really. A somewhat disjointed display but the gulf in class v such a poor side leads to a comfortable victory. I think the defence will be a danger zone against anyone decent.

Im not re writing history, he was sacked by both West Brom and Watford within a year with both sides in a rut, and both sackings were seen as totally understandable and expected. Neither spell went to plan, and he had both clubs in far better positions with stronger squads than subsequent managers there as the parachute payments slow down. I would argue that the one re writing history is the one trying to make out as if his spells at West Brom and Watford were successful. He may have learnt from his mistakes, thats what we need to hope. He couldnt have started much worse, in 4 games and a very favourable run of fixtures, hes taken us from being in the play offs to be pretty much out of contention entirely. Some feat. You seem to have kidded yourself into thinking that him saying he wants to play quick possession football will lead to this lovely balanced style of sometimes going long, only ever playing in the right areas and everything going to plan. His only success came playing direct football which apparently he cant repeat here. The current squad isnt suited to possession heavy football, the resources arent there to overhaul the squad, and a far more talented coach in Tomasson couldnt be successful adopting that style. That Rovers v Watford game has become a bit of an obsession of yours. From what I remember, it was an uneventful game settled by a goalkeeping howler. That Rajovic was a really poor striker.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/west-brom-valerien-ismael-sacked-22958279.amp Here is an article on him. They started really well and then nosedived, he was tactically inflexible and had started to fall out with senior players. He was also replaced by Steve Bruce inheriting an unhappy squad so that doesnt scream bringing in someone to do the job properly. I dont know why his time there is being reconstructed as somewhat successful. It wasnt.

5 wins would take us to 67 points so I think 6 or more likely 7 would be needed. Not happening.

Feels like people are rewriting history based from afar and purely on league positions without context to say that he did a good job when he was expectedly sacked. Or equally dismissing when he did once do an impressive job at this level. Its surely better to just judge as we go rather than setting a random time point to which we can be allowed to judge. Even if that involves early predictions, knowing that people can get things wrong. We though Eustace was going to be crap based on the early days, same with Brereton, whereas on the flip side we thought Cantwell would be a potentialy good signing. I havent personally said he definitely will be a failure, although even if he isnt he will be undermined and it ends the same as if he is crap. But not only the results which are beyond just an extension of typical bad run of form considering the opposition, but the tactics he seems keen to adopt, just doesnt make sense.

There have been examples of both sides of people massaging Ismael's career to suit an argument on either side. He was poached from Barnsley after overachieving there. He was doing a good job clearly and was picked up by a better side. Its unfair to suggest that he didnt. On the flip side, he was sacked at West Brom and Watford for not doing a good job. You cant take where he was out of context but at West Brom the expectation was automatic promotion and his team was getting worse, journalists and supporters alike expected and welcomed his departure. And at Watford, you cant just dismiss it as being at Watford as if it was an unwarranted dismissal by a trigger happy club. Again, his sacking was in the pipeline, greeted positively when it happened. You also cant compare it to the jobs done by subsequent managers. Ismael had both of those clubs at times where he inherited a much stronger situation, West Brom had just come down and he was allowed to bring in a couple of players he had worked with before. Watford also had a better squad than what Cleverley has got to work with.

A number of quality signings? A hybrid of Eustace's organisation and pragmatism and Tomasson's entertaining style where we control games? Pacy and creative players entertaining the crowds? Dominance over promoted sides? Real character to regularly come back to win from losing positions? I like the sound of it. I mean, under owners focused solely on slashing costs, a limited playing squad sorely lacking in players capable of dominating games effectively, a novice in charge of recruitment who has made a dogs dinner out of it this season. And a head coach who has only really done well in this country at one club at which he played a long ball style totally at odds to what he is proposing, and who has started embarassingly badly. It aint happening. But one can dream.

Do you actually expect that to happen or moreso the required quality to be brought in? And do you think Ismael is the man to bring in a passing style (his only success was playing long ball) and that the likes of Gueye, Batth, Weimann and even Travis are suited to such a style? Pears will be number 1 next season, people have been calling for an upgrade for years but symptomatic of the running down of the club, he has stayed as number 1. I also expect our lack of pace to be overlooked, Forshaw to be given another year and another batch of predominantly poor quality loans. Travis, Tronstad and Brittain seem set to either be sold or to leave next summer for free. The terrible owners will not allow a competitive budget and with Gestede in charge of recruitment and Ismael then in charge of the team, its a recipe for disaster.

Out of interest. You speak about not "writing him off" or judging too soon. Had we won the first 4 games, do you think people would be saying the same?

Tomasson was a far better head coach, tactically he was very good, he managed to convert JRC into one of the best right backs in the league drifting into midfield such was his tactical acumen, he also had a goalscorer in Brereton and then Szmodics, he did benefit initially from a bit of spending, and even amidst all that, it didnt really work. We nearly made the play offs but our results declined when we started to play more pleasing on the eye football, and when the cuts came in the summer everything fell to shit. Ismael has had his only success playing quite the opposite of possession based football. He did try to play like that more at Watford where he had a really good squad and it didnt work. You look at some of the players we have now. Gueye would simply not suit a possession based style, we may aswell get rid in the summer. Batth and Weimann (the latter I wouldnt offer a new deal anyway after his injury and at his age) would clearly need to go. Our midfield which was our strength is not a possession focused one. Our defenders arent particularly good on the ball. If anyone reads what he has said and thinks that could work, then they must have been living in a cave.

So weve already written off this season. So the "project" has to be restarted? You do surprise me. And we on our meagre budget plan to try and play possession based football with a core of players that have shown in the past that they cant really do that. Headed by a head coach whose only career success came playing really direct football? This isnt doomed to failure, honest.

Is Coyle a better manager than Eustace? Judging a manager isnt as black and white as number of promotions. Same when people start quoting win percentages, it depends on the context of the jobs they do, its subjective. Youve spent days mocking my suggestion of Edwards (I said he was the best of an overall poor group of linked managers) in an attempt to deflect and make Ismael seem better. Now you are saying that Edwards would have been an upgrade on Eustace purely because of the promotions. Yet Ismael has no promotions and he was an appointment you strongly endorsed and have refused to criticise or even admit there are concerns/red flags. Where is the consistency in your arguments?

He has had Hyam, Carter, Travis and Tronstad available for all of the games. I know Tronstad has not been fully fit but to prior to Ismael's game, it had been a long while since Travis and Tronstad had been included in the same squad. Our form had not been great but its misleading to focus on only one game considering we had won 3 in 5. Suhail and Waggott arent even the main problem, Venkys are but they are clearly much bigger problems than the manager. I certainly would be the first to criticise the way the club is run, I have criticised the recruitment especially in January but also the summer. But specific to this thread, what Ismael has overseen (when you would expect some sort of new manager bounce) has not been a continuation of poor results. Its considerably worse even than that, and IMO performances and tactics used have also been very poor.

I totally agree that Ismael is clearly not who the brunt of the anger should be aimed at. Its the owners. But speaking specifically in the Ismael thread, I think it has been beyond a mere continuation of what we have seen before. I think that might have been more of a valid argument had we gained a disappointing say 3 or 4 points from 3 games against teams in the bottom 5. We have lost games in isolation v poor teams before he joined, and had we done so once or even twice in the last week, then ok, but to lose all 3 is unacceptable. Yes we have injury problems (we seem to pick up a new one each game since he joined so maybe questions can arise about training methods) but we have more than enough to at least get some points from these last 3 games to avoid already having nothing to play for. And the performances have been a huge concern. Ismael seems confused, changing formations, changing tact from wanting to not change much to now talking about the changes hes making. That confusion is evident in the performances of the players. We stand off more and press even less, we seem more keen to pass for the sake of passing. Its not just a continuation, its a further decline.

To lose a single game in isolation against a struggling side would be bad but it can happen. 3 in a week is the issue. We had also won 3 in 5 prior to his arrival. It really is scraping the barrel to defend him because weve lost games or had runs of losses in the past. I get that he is only 4 games in so I understand that side of not writing him off. But even beyond results, I have seen not one positive in terms of performances, nothing to cling onto. Your argument seems to be just that we have lost games in the past. Have you seen anything at all in his first 4 games that has impressed you in any way?

Youve seemingly come up with a functional game plan that youve seen that no one else has and something that clearly hasnt worked. He said at the start that he didnt want to really change anything. Since, he changed the formation and changed it back, and talked about now adapting to a new style. And it is clearly different. We have not pressed at all, we stand off and we pass a lot more from side to side. You flippantly said should we give the ball to the opposition. Thats not the only alternative to keeping possession for the sake of it. We havent started creating more chances under Ismael. I think it would be a very small minority of managers who would have got 0 points from the last 3 games. You keep repeating that we have had bad runs before. Obviously we have. But the one under Ismael off the back of 3 wins in 5 has been particularly bad against bottom 5 sides. If he had won all 4, we wouldnt say oh well weve won 6 on the bounce earlier in the season. We have looked even worse since he joined than at any point in the season.

Ideally, someone capable of getting any points against 3 of the bottom 5 as to at least keep any hopes of the top 6 going beyond the international break 4 games into his employment.

Under Ismael though its not just been a continuation of below par form. There has been a dip even beyond that. Based on previous form, we probably wouldnt have necessarily picked up 7 or 9 points from 3 of the bottom 5 but we would have at least got some results on the board. Everything seems confused. He has gone from not wanting to change much to trying to force change. Hes gone between formations, neither of which have worked. We have become noticeably more passive, noticeably more keen to pass for the sake of passing. The players look totally confused and particularly disjointed. We have started every single game slowly. The argument that we were crap anyway is flawed, as if he hasnt made things worse. Yes the owners are the issue and the team is patched together on a shoestring but its better than 1 points from these 4 games and better than the performances weve seen.

Gueye and Brittain cost the same amount. If one of the two has shown more value and I appreciate that one has been here for longer, then as it stands, it isnt Gueye.

Your analysis is massively skewed because of your dislike of Broughton. Both he and what has followed have been massively hindered by the owners and the pathetic budget but still within that. You have missed Tronstad who Broughton signed who you coincedentally are the only one who doesnt rate him. Brittain and Hyam have also been good signings and are key players. Hill was a good loan signing. On the flip side, Gueye cant surely be considered good value. He may be seen as that in the future and is getting better but he has 6 league goals. Same with Ohashi. If ACD was a good signing in theory then so was say Moran, but in reality hes been shit. Cantwell has been missed from the above, hes been rubbish. McFadzean played one league minute. Weimann has been a useful pick up, Batth and Beck have been good. The rest have ranged from ok to shocking.