We're third after 21 games

[RaySmith]

We didn't play badly at Preston, but they took their chances, and we were unlucky v Bristol, and the season still has a long way to run.

Third Place!  We need to get behind the manager and players.
I think we still have the potential to do well with this squad and manager, maybe with some defensive improvement.

we didn't play badly at Preston? Were we watching the same game, just like Bristol city, we didn't even start to get going until the game was already lost

I was at the  game, and have the ticket to prove it.

From my vantage point, near the  front behind the goal where the Fulham fans were, there didn't look to be much between the two teams, except they successfully pressed us in the final third with their  pacey players, and  we didn't seem able to cope and retain possession.

But I did see a lot that was good from us though, but we weren't incisive enough in attack, and they defended better than we did.

But I didn't think they were much, if at all better than us - we could beat them on another day, with everyone  fit.

[Sgt Fulham]

Football doesn't work like this- like a computer game
It's how players mesh as a team, combined with input and organisation from training staff and manager.

Unless you are Newcastle or West Brom and hire a proper manager.

[RaySmith]

Wan't Ranieri a 'proper' manager? He did win the Prem with Leicester!

And what about Felix Magath's  track record, appointed because of his record in saving teams from relegation, and winning things with unfashionable sides - albeit in Germany.

Or Martin Jol?

[Sgt Fulham]

Yes, but the Premier League and Championship are completely different propositions. Ranieri was poor but a complete mismatch in terms of style and we had a tragic bunch of players for the quality of the league. Martin Jol wasnt perfect but he managed some good Premier League campaigns with us before we sold our best players and refused to invest in sufficient quality to keep us up. It went sour but in hindsight it wasnt massively his fault.

You have me with Magath, but he was a bit of a special case. He spectacularly alienated players and lost the dressing room while failing to take the most competitive second division in the world seriously. That will not happen with the vast majority of managers, given any form of background check.

Ranking those managers I'd have Parker above only Magath.

[Spirit of 2000]

Wan't Ranieri a 'proper' manager? He did win the Prem with Leicester!

And what about Felix Magath's  track record, appointed because of his record in saving teams from relegation, and winning things with unfashionable sides - albeit in Germany.

Or Martin Jol?

Ranieri was utterly unsuited to the type of players he inherited here, Magath was a nutter who has been unemployed for ages - even in Germany where he had his previous successes, Jol was ok if he had a stack of £££ to spend like at Spurs where their fans still like him - he didn't at Fulham, and despite losing it big time in the relegation season, a lot of our demise at that point was inevitable as MAF had decided he wasn't investing anymore and wanted out ... the squad of players was reduced to such a rabble that we would have struggled to have stayed up no matter who was in charge. Parker is unsuited to get a bunch of players who should be achieving more at this level to deliver to something close to that potential, his style, tactics, selection are all questionable. He may be a "nice bloke who's liked by the players" but so were Bracewell & Wilkins - and those are the closest aligned to how he chooses to set up.

[RaySmith]

So far Parker has done well - up to 3rd, and results were better when he took over in the Prem - he should have been given the job, instead of Ranieri, trying to carry on in Slavisa's  possession style which the players were used to, and with a strong commitment to the players and club, which Ranieri didn't have.

I think he might have kept us up.

[Sgt Fulham]

If by Slavisa's style you mean a Lidl-style rip off then sure. Unai Emery did a good job with Arsenal, keeping them mostly in the top half of the Premier League. It's the toughest league in the world dont you know? But wait, Arsenal have huge financial backing and talent that should see them comfortably competing towards the top of the league. They have a striker carrying them, an awful defence and boring style of play. Sound familiar? But Emery did a good job.

'Good job' is all relative to resources and expectation. Scott Parker is NOT doing a good job.

[Spirit of 2000]

So far Parker has done well - up to 3rd, and results were better when he took over in the Prem - he should have been given the job, instead of Ranieri, trying to carry on in Slavisa's  possession style which the players were used to, and with a strong commitment to the players and club, which Ranieri didn't have.

I think he might have kept us up.

IMO Parker should have never been given the job in the first instance. We should have got an experienced decent manager in - the biggest difference between us & West Brom and Leeds is Parker compared to Bilic/Bielsa - I wonder if your and others opinions will change is in 2 games time we've lost to Brentford & Leeds and are sitting 9th or thereabouts.

[toshes mate]

I have backed Parker throughout and continue to stick to giving him the whole season regardless of how twitchy trigger fingers may get.  However, I do not regard the 'we are third' statement as anything other than an incidental consequence of a long English football season (i.e. a bit like being first in the table after match one).  Football is a bit like trying to win the lottery; you can stick to the same numbers or keep on changing them about because, statistically speaking, it really makes no difference at all even if you have won the lottery once already.  You can still win, lose or draw (the equivalent of a stalemate) according to chance.

Managers, in any walk of life, work on systems to get their staff doing what is required of them in the most efficient way possible (i.e. the cheapest).  Making the least number of errors possible is high on that least of efficiency.  This can be likened to getting staff to buy lottery tickets that will win money rather than tickets that will not.  The manager (assuming they know what they are doing) will teach or instruct staff how to buy tickets that increase chances of success rather than reduce them.  They will monitor the progress of individuals and eliminate those who regularly make costly mistakes, while increasing investment in those who are successful to a realistic level.  An efficient manager will have regular returns to prove his/her worth.

Football is also about results and the high level of winning lottery returns is set on 66.6% which equates to two points per game played. In other words you still win even while losing on one third of your tickets.  Your task as manager is to employ staff who win two out of every three attempts constantly and you reduce the risk of failure by eliminating anyone who cannot be depended upon to give you this output.  Most worthwhile managers should be expected to get quite a bit above 50% with ease but closing down on that two thirds figure is a real problem for all but the fortunate few.

Football managers are like competing gamblers with systems that will hopefully provide a return close to 66.6% but less than 8% of them will reach or better that figure. 

[Logicalman]

We're also:
11 points from 2nd place
1 point from 7th place
5 points from 12th place

So are the teams below us, if not slightly worse.

Exactly this.  :54:

[Logicalman]

I have backed Parker throughout and continue to stick to giving him the whole season regardless of how twitchy trigger fingers may get.  However, I do not regard the 'we are third' statement as anything other than an incidental consequence of a long English football season (i.e. a bit like being first in the table after match one).  Football is a bit like trying to win the lottery; you can stick to the same numbers or keep on changing them about because, statistically speaking, it really makes no difference at all even if you have won the lottery once already.  You can still win, lose or draw (the equivalent of a stalemate) according to chance.

Managers, in any walk of life, work on systems to get their staff doing what is required of them in the most efficient way possible (i.e. the cheapest).  Making the least number of errors possible is high on that least of efficiency.  This can be likened to getting staff to buy lottery tickets that will win money rather than tickets that will not.  The manager (assuming they know what they are doing) will teach or instruct staff how to buy tickets that increase chances of success rather than reduce them.  They will monitor the progress of individuals and eliminate those who regularly make costly mistakes, while increasing investment in those who are successful to a realistic level.  An efficient manager will have regular returns to prove his/her worth.

Football is also about results and the high level of winning lottery returns is set on 66.6% which equates to two points per game played. In other words you still win even while losing on one third of your tickets.  Your task as manager is to employ staff who win two out of every three attempts constantly and you reduce the risk of failure by eliminating anyone who cannot be depended upon to give you this output.  Most worthwhile managers should be expected to get quite a bit above 50% with ease but closing down on that two thirds figure is a real problem for all but the fortunate few.

Football managers are like competing gamblers with systems that will hopefully provide a return close to 66.6% but less than 8% of them will reach or better that figure.

Good, well-reasoned, response. I do hate this manager merry-go-round each season based on our individual expectations. If SP is not the long-term manager for us then so be it, but give him a season to prove (or disprove) himself, as long as we are in no danger of relegation then I cannot see any reason to change within the season.

[Spirit of 2000]

I have backed Parker throughout and continue to stick to giving him the whole season regardless of how twitchy trigger fingers may get.  However, I do not regard the 'we are third' statement as anything other than an incidental consequence of a long English football season (i.e. a bit like being first in the table after match one).  Football is a bit like trying to win the lottery; you can stick to the same numbers or keep on changing them about because, statistically speaking, it really makes no difference at all even if you have won the lottery once already.  You can still win, lose or draw (the equivalent of a stalemate) according to chance.

Managers, in any walk of life, work on systems to get their staff doing what is required of them in the most efficient way possible (i.e. the cheapest).  Making the least number of errors possible is high on that least of efficiency.  This can be likened to getting staff to buy lottery tickets that will win money rather than tickets that will not.  The manager (assuming they know what they are doing) will teach or instruct staff how to buy tickets that increase chances of success rather than reduce them.  They will monitor the progress of individuals and eliminate those who regularly make costly mistakes, while increasing investment in those who are successful to a realistic level.  An efficient manager will have regular returns to prove his/her worth.

Football is also about results and the high level of winning lottery returns is set on 66.6% which equates to two points per game played. In other words you still win even while losing on one third of your tickets.  Your task as manager is to employ staff who win two out of every three attempts constantly and you reduce the risk of failure by eliminating anyone who cannot be depended upon to give you this output.  Most worthwhile managers should be expected to get quite a bit above 50% with ease but closing down on that two thirds figure is a real problem for all but the fortunate few.

Football managers are like competing gamblers with systems that will hopefully provide a return close to 66.6% but less than 8% of them will reach or better that figure.

Good, well-reasoned, response. I do hate this manager merry-go-round each season based on our individual expectations. If SP is not the long-term manager for us then so be it, but give him a season to prove (or disprove) himself, as long as we are in no danger of relegation then I cannot see any reason to change within the season.

So we're 3rd - the season isn't dead as there's a realistic chance for us to finish in the playoffs. Why shouldn't we have an experienced manager who's equipped to lead us in those & get the best out of this squad which SP is most  definitely not doing? Or is it ok to finish 10th, say thanks for trying Scott, but it didn't work, hey ho ... then wave bye to Mitrovic as he signs for a premier league side?

[H4usuallysitting]

It would be crazy to replace Mr Parker.....he needs at least a season

was you calling for felix to be given a season, or how about Sanchez?

After 21 games, were we third under Sanchez or Magath

[Logicalman]

I have backed Parker throughout and continue to stick to giving him the whole season regardless of how twitchy trigger fingers may get.  However, I do not regard the 'we are third' statement as anything other than an incidental consequence of a long English football season (i.e. a bit like being first in the table after match one).  Football is a bit like trying to win the lottery; you can stick to the same numbers or keep on changing them about because, statistically speaking, it really makes no difference at all even if you have won the lottery once already.  You can still win, lose or draw (the equivalent of a stalemate) according to chance.

Managers, in any walk of life, work on systems to get their staff doing what is required of them in the most efficient way possible (i.e. the cheapest).  Making the least number of errors possible is high on that least of efficiency.  This can be likened to getting staff to buy lottery tickets that will win money rather than tickets that will not.  The manager (assuming they know what they are doing) will teach or instruct staff how to buy tickets that increase chances of success rather than reduce them.  They will monitor the progress of individuals and eliminate those who regularly make costly mistakes, while increasing investment in those who are successful to a realistic level.  An efficient manager will have regular returns to prove his/her worth.

Football is also about results and the high level of winning lottery returns is set on 66.6% which equates to two points per game played. In other words you still win even while losing on one third of your tickets.  Your task as manager is to employ staff who win two out of every three attempts constantly and you reduce the risk of failure by eliminating anyone who cannot be depended upon to give you this output.  Most worthwhile managers should be expected to get quite a bit above 50% with ease but closing down on that two thirds figure is a real problem for all but the fortunate few.

Football managers are like competing gamblers with systems that will hopefully provide a return close to 66.6% but less than 8% of them will reach or better that figure.

Good, well-reasoned, response. I do hate this manager merry-go-round each season based on our individual expectations. If SP is not the long-term manager for us then so be it, but give him a season to prove (or disprove) himself, as long as we are in no danger of relegation then I cannot see any reason to change within the season.

So we're 3rd - the season isn't dead as there's a realistic chance for us to finish in the playoffs. Why shouldn't we have an experienced manager who's equipped to lead us in those & get the best out of this squad which SP is most  definitely not doing? Or is it ok to finish 10th, say thanks for trying Scott, but it didn't work, hey ho ... then wave bye to Mitrovic as he signs for a premier league side?

I understand, and don't disagree with, what you say, but, as we have seen both with our club and others, replacing a manager mid-season does not always work either.

If we don't make the playoffs this season then I wouldn't oppose the club looking for a replacement to SP, but if we do make them and, God forbid, we get promoted again, it won't be too much difference from the last time I should expect as I honestly feel that we don't have the players that can sustain a Prem season successfully notwithstanding who we have as manager.

[Chutney]

Considering we didn't sign a single defender over the summer its actually pretty impressive we are third at this point.

[I Ronic]

It would be crazy to replace Mr Parker.....he needs at least a season

was you calling for felix to be given a season, or how about Sanchez?

After 21 games, were we third under Sanchez or Magath

Or Slavisa.

[MJG]

12 Dec 2017....12th 29 points Some fans wanted Slav Out 10 points from last 6 games
12 Dec 2019.....3rd 35 points some fans want Parker out  12 points from last 6 games

Lets not rush to judgment on Parker yet.

before anyone replies I'm not expecting a Slav 2nd half season, but I do expect to be in the Playoffs. IF at any time now it looks in jeopardy then of course you look at it again, but at the moment he stays in my book, and as one who a self-confessed Parker doubter even when he was a player I realise he still deserves his chance.

[Sgt Fulham]

We're also:
11 points from 2nd place
1 point from 7th place
5 points from 12th place

So are the teams below us, if not slightly worse.

Exactly this.  :54:

And now let's compare our budget and wage bill to theirs.

[Chutney]

12 Dec 2017....12th 29 points Some fans wanted Slav Out 10 points from last 6 games
12 Dec 2019.....3rd 35 points some fans want Parker out  12 points from last 6 games

Lets not rush to judgment on Parker yet.

before anyone replies I'm not expecting a Slav 2nd half season, but I do expect to be in the Playoffs. IF at any time now it looks in jeopardy then of course you look at it again, but at the moment he stays in my book, and as one who a self-confessed Parker doubter even when he was a player I realise he still deserves his chance.

This is exactly right, we don't have a top 2 squad, the cries for Parker out are so premature, if we make the play offs then he's achieved what we can realistically expect from him.

[toshes mate]

12 Dec 2017....12th 29 points Some fans wanted Slav Out 10 points from last 6 games
12 Dec 2019.....3rd 35 points some fans want Parker out  12 points from last 6 games

Lets not rush to judgment on Parker yet.

before anyone replies I'm not expecting a Slav 2nd half season, but I do expect to be in the Playoffs. IF at any time now it looks in jeopardy then of course you look at it again, but at the moment he stays in my book, and as one who a self-confessed Parker doubter even when he was a player I realise he still deserves his chance.

Absolutely agree, although it may be argued that automatic promotion was an essential part of the Parker deal, and play offs would therefore be a compromise for both owners and manager. 

Referring back to my earlier piece we shouldn't forget that owners operate in the same gambling cartel as we all do, and the outcomes of changing key personnel in order to turn clubs around do not make especially pretty reading.  My main reasoning about Parker is that history suggests our owners are not essentially gifted in buying their own brand of lottery tickets even if one of them made loads of money out of one particular visit to the Life's Palace of Chances.  It's essential, IMO, to understand the reality of the overall situation as it stands and not read too much badness or goodness into it.  It is what it is.