I agree with you. The manager's role is very different these days.

Roy has done, is doing, a great job for our club, but we do need younger, more up to date thinking with our coaching methods after he retires. I still don't want to see him forced out early - it would be very undignified to do so.

Dad and I watched games standing on the muddy slope of the Holmesdale Road end. He cheered and I rattled.

That's an interesting article. There's no doubt that if a coach can get a smaller team to play in a manner suitable for (or maybe even better suited to) a big team then their coach, and perhaps more of their players, will be attractive to those bigger teams. Conversely, anti football limits the long term prospects of it exponents as individuals.

What the article doesn't address is whether smaller clubs actually benefit in the end from being a shop window.

Are Swansea actually any better off for having had Rogers and Martinez act on their stage? There's no obvious reason to say so. If Potter does get the chance at a big club, will Brighton have got anything to show for his time there? Not yet they haven't.

Personally I don't want to be like Southampton. Being a shop window for an endless stream of coaches and players, all of whom are only there so they can leave as soon as possible. It may be a viable business model but it doesn't lead a club to the next level. Southampton aren't trading their way up, improving the side with their transfer business. They are treading water every bit as much as we are, restarting the cycle from zero every couple of years. Are they proud of all their old players winning things with bigger clubs? Doubt it. It must have crossed the minds of some of their supporters during their annual 0-9 hammering that, in part at least, they play so openly to suit the personal aspirations of their coach and players rather than the club and its supporters.

If we get one of Howe, Cooper or Frank in, and he manages to play much better football with our squad than his predecessors, that of course would be great. If, on the other hand, he's prepared to risk playing football we aren't suited to just to improve his chances of getting a top job in a couple of years, that's quite another.

So if Potter is the best English manager in the PL how come Brighton are below us having spent £240m to our £50m?

Last season the pundits praised Norwich and their style of football early on....

Edited by Badger11 (27 Feb 2021 12.38pm)

One more point

There is nothing to see here. The old days of a manager being in charge of who comes and goes with negotiating contracts are long gone. I doubt any club in the Premier allows the manager that control anymore, they can purely make recommendations and hope.

That's carraghers point I think. It's less about who is the best manager, and more about which manager is best suited to coaching a bigger club, which (as perverse as it may seem at first glance) is not the same thing.

I must admit I'm in the Roy out camp the football he coaches is really not an enjoyable watch. I have read a lot on this thread about people who want Roy replaced because they want us to revert to a possession based game and play like Barcelona or Man City. Personally I don't what that I what is a manger who has an attacking philosophy as a well as a defensive one.

The way Roy sets us up is clear to see but to play that way you should be good on the break but are we really a counter attacking side, you could argue we are as both goals against Brighton were on the break. However I'm sure I've heard Roy say we are a possession based side, but are we really that either. It's all very well being hard to beat and obviously not conceding is part and parcel of the game but you also need a game plan to be able to win games and I just don't think we do, in fact some of the goals we score in my opinion are in spite of the coaching Roy does and not because of it.

I know I'm probably not saying anything new but surely there must be a coach out there that can give a clear identity to how we play defensively and offensively because unfortunately I don't see that from Roy.