Yes it is funny because you've just proved exactly my point
. The tweet literally says first half. I
specifically said I was happy with the first half. Where was he in the 2nd half when we was being pinned back in our own half by fecking IB for a good 20-35mins?
And besides, shouting one-liners from the stands doesn't cut it for me.
Thanks for glossing over my entire post and where I even
specifically say the analogy of a manager looking over your shoulder is a not neccessarily good thing, just a different choice of action. To clarify, a consistent presence and communication is key to affecting and guiding a team. There's no two ways about it.
There's no proof to say you can become a better or lesser manager because of it but you'd be a fool to sit back and let it 'play out'. Conversely, Ole has a distinct lack of 'action' on the sidelines.
You can't turn Stoke into Barca by screaming like a madman but you can definitely improve a team with the smallest margins if you're 'on it' and making your point across to the team. And therein lies the problem, we're lacking in the details and margins.
Why is it so difficult/divisive to acknowledge that whilst Ole has been a breath of fresh air and it's undeniable the players like playing under him, we can't also agree that our tactics and general approach is exactly that, very generic. That's on him and one of the criticisms is that when we have lapses of poor play in a game, there's not enough being done by the single most authorative figure to change that. I know it's tiring to beat him over the stick with with seems like a 'small' thing but instructions and passion from the sidelines is
not an intangible thing for me, it's an absolute choice of tool/action; to suggest otherwise is akin to believing the players and the game is played in a robotic manner.