
Originally Posted by
Niall_Quinn
Even that's open ended. What do you mean by "challenge"? Within a point, within 3, 6? In with a shout until the final game?
Given the sub-par performance of our opposition, as you like to refer to all the time, why aren't we saying he should go if he doesn't win it? What has he achieved if all he can do is "compete" with mediocrity? Isn't it time we had something better?
For me, even if he wins it he should go. His decision making process is too screwed up to benefit us when there are countless decent managers out there who could make much more rational decisions.