Why we are where we are

100% agree Rich. And it all has a knock on effect...you might say "well this is Hursts team now" but if recruitment in the summer hadn't have been so bad, we wouldn't have been in the position where we basically had to try and sign a whole new team in January and rely on signing unfit players. Not saying Hurst is completely blameless, but I do believe it was a poisoned chalice of a job.

Now look at the size of the squad...it's an absolute joke.

We completely dismantled what was an OK squad in the summer and let a load of good players leave, because we didn't want to pay any of them in the summer. Did any other team do that? We had a good base of a squad that just needed adding to. Now we've signed basically two squads since then.

Quoted from sam gy

100%  Now we've signed basically two squads since then.

As my auntie always used to say...... 'Buy cheap, buy twice.'

I don't deny that Hurst should take some of the blame. His record since taking over is far short of what I was reasonably expecting, and I say that as a Hurst fan who was pleased to see him return.

But it's not quite as simple as 'Hurst's record is worse than Holloway's'. Holloway had all summer to recruit and was part of the board that made the decisions. You can't compare them side-by-side; Holloway had a massive advantage and he basically drunk it up the wall.

We weren't good enough under Holloway, and that was down to investment as well as his incompetence on match day. Yes, points-wise we've been worse since then, but it's not every season you have to basically recruit an entire new squad in January.

Was it wise to do that? Well, it's clear Hurst wasn't getting anything from the squad he inherited.

I don’t think any of us had any confidence in the squad that Hollowords left. The points per game might have been a tad better but that included a couple of good games early on. The trajectory was downwards. We all know it and only regime diehards argue otherwise.

We were dropping like a stone under IH anyway. We would probably have kept going in the same direction had he stayed.

Amazing how absence makes managers and players appear better than they are. He was the biggest pariah going pre Christmas, and now he is "better than Hurst".

Quoted from sam gy

100% agree Rich. And it all has a knock on effect...you might say "well this is Hursts team now" but if recruitment in the summer hadn't have been so bad, we wouldn't have been in the position where we basically had to try and sign a whole new team in January and rely on signing unfit players. Not saying Hurst is completely blameless, but I do believe it was a poisoned chalice of a job.

Now look at the size of the squad...it's an absolute joke.

We completely dismantled what was an OK squad in the summer and let a load of good players leave, because we didn't want to pay any of them in the summer. Did any other team do that? We had a good base of a squad that just needed adding to. Now we've signed basically two squads since then.

Quoted from ginnywings

We were dropping like a stone under IH anyway. We would probably have kept going in the same direction had he stayed.

Amazing how absence makes managers and players appear better than they are. He was the biggest pariah going pre Christmas, and now he is "better than Hurst".

When Hurst starts getting some results, or gets 2 teams promoted to the Premier League, then I'll accept that he's better than Holloway. Right now, they're both excrement. We didn't need all the players that we signed. 4 or 5 good additions would have been much better than overhauling the team with a bunch of players that haven't looked much better.

One answer to that question,16 years of ineptitude

Quoted from friskneymariner

One answer to that question,16 years of ineptitude

Capped by a year of complete negligence by the “hopefully” outgoing board. They say football is a business if that was really true this f****rs would have been booted out ages ago.

“Custodians of the club” my @rse.

*18