Those are all fair points and obviously everything is subjective. Martin was flawed, don’t get me wrong he persisted far too much with a system that didn’t fully suit our team in my opinion. The one thing I always say for him though, is that I don’t think his football was risk averse by design, I think he genuinely believed that was the best way to use the players he had. Contrast that with Sheehan and to me he seems consciously afraid to take the handbrake off for whatever reason.
The difference between Sheehan and Martin is Martin is an absolute bell end.
I’m just talking from a football perspective. I personally liked the way Martin came across, I never saw the arrogance that some did. He was just stubborn and could have a bit of an ego but that’s like most football managers.
If the bloke was chocolate, he'd eat himself.
I’m not saying I want him back as our manager or anything but I always thought people gave too much flack to Martin and it let the old ownership off the hook, that was where the main problem was.
Personally I felt he didn't get enough flack. Any other manager who went twenty odd games without winning would have been publicly flogged in Castle Gardens.
Can't argue with any of that post. Not sure if the owners , who after trying to raise the profile of the club and spending a reasonable amount of money this summer, are going to be happy sitting 16th in the table, playing an uninspiring and boring brand of football. To me Sheehan is not interested in moving away from his pragmatic brand of football. On Wednesday, for 30 minutes, we saw us attacking with intent with Widell and Inoussa doing well, come yesterday, there's no way Eom should have been in before Widell, but yet again the manager picked Eom who let's be honest has had far more chances than his end product deserves. Crowds are not going to improve with this current state of affairs, and that's also another thing the owners may be thinking about.
