The other issue is that we looked a lot better on both sides of the ball against Arsenal and Newcastle, with the same players that have been available for nearly the entirety of the season. By simply tweaking the positioning of our midfield. This kind of defies the idea that injuries are the main issue.
To be honest, I don't think that I have ever seen a manager given that much leeway. SAF was blamed for zombie football, Guardiola was blamed for anti-football tiki taka, Klopp was blamed for his naive extreme gegenpress, LVG was blamed for his boring possession football, Moyes was blamed for crossing it like the Vatican, Simeone is blamed for his defensive style, Pulis has been blamed for his 80s brand of Football. But with ETH it's not the coach, it's the players, the structure or Stretford End's leaking roof.
1st paragraph: I wouldn't be so fast to get the injuries out of the window. I agree with you, ETH would have had the chance to adapt earlier and quite frankly, I was often puzzled about some of his decisions. But I think he said in an interview that he didn't want to disrupt the team by changing everything up again only to re-shuffle it like 3 or 4 games later another time, when he expected the injured players to be back.
I don't want to absolve him of any responsibility or anything, but the injuries played a role in our season. If on matchday 3 two starters in defence get injured plus two midfielders then obviously, you'd expect the manager to adjust the initial plan for the season to get the best out of what you have. But I think this question isn't as easy when we are talking about injuries that take 2-4 weeks here and there. And always to the same players. I think, as a manager, you have to gamble to a degree - is it worth to reshuffle what you worked on only to have to reshuffle it again when everybody is back?
edit: we know how pressing works ideally, you push up, the whole team does to compress the space. You take the risk of giving the other team space in behind to play into but ideally, the advantages are bigger than the disadvantages. Our transition defending looks as bad as it does, because the attackers are seemingly fully comitted to the "push up" agenda but the defense isn't pushing up accordingly for multiple reasons. Yes the manager should have found a solution but when your available defenders are too often 36yo Evans, Maguire, Lindelof or now Casemiro - some doors simply are closed...
2nd paragraph: my feeling is that ETH isn't really getting as much leeway as people (well I can only talk about me) see the struggles he had, see the initial challenge he faced and see the implications of having to bring in somebody else. ETH certainly didn't have it easy this year, the challenge to update our playstyle is probably larger than many people expect (given that this team hasn't been coached/played/instructed in a modern way for 10 years) and there isn't really any standout alternative to ETH lurking around.
So all in all, I guess for some people it isn't as much "I am pro ETH and thats why I don't want him gone" but more "as long as we don't know who can be the best successor, it makes no sense to be impulsive and get rid". In the whatsapp group I am in, that is the standpoint of a few fans, they are fine seeing him go but not for the sake of not having him anymore but for the sake of bringing somebody in who is more suited to the overall plan. And given that we don't know whether there really is an actual plan - maybe it isn't the smartest thing to try to tweak too many cogs at the same time.
Our lack of strong options in defence is of course an issue this season. But why persist all season with something that does not work. Madness. It was clear as day something was off with our defensive shape in the first game against Wolves. Should have been adressed at ht in that game, at the latest. But nah, it was the Palace game a few weeks ago that broke him and forced a few tweaks that made us a touch less open and vulnerable for transitions. Like he always knew how to correct things but still didn’t do it until the season was clinically dead. Would love to know how the discussions went among the staff during the season.
Don't really want to be seen as an ETH defender or somebody who is advocating to keep him but some of the arguments here aren't really strong. Isn't it obvious that a new playstyle will/would take some time to bed in? For players to learn their roles, get familiar with their responsibilities and movement of team mates and let synergies form? If people expect us to play better football from one day to the other, there is only disappointment waiting. People act as if nothing has worked out this season, and I can understand where they are coming from, but stats show that we became quite good at winning the ball high up the field. So one of the (apparent) objectives of ETHs playstyle seemed to work - the issue has been that due to our poor form around the attackers, we were rarely able to capitalize on those situations. This is what breaks the system, it is a certain gamble, risk and reward, push up, force mistakes, capitalize on those mistakes. When the last part isn't there, you are stuck with something that puts yourself at risk without really giving you a reward for it.
I don't know if ETH is the right person for us. Or whether he is capable to lead us back to glory. But I am quite sure that the road ahead will be very rocky. No matter who is at the wheel. There are many things our team is behind our rivals, collective principles, organized pressing, workrate - it will take time to even get level with most of our opponents, not even talking about getting better than them. A long term plan has to get in place and emotional reactions (even understandable ones) on frustrating events shouldn't be given too much power in decision making.
