I’ve just quickly read this and don’t really understand everything, but Chris Coleman’s time at Fulham places him top of the table of managers active in the last few seasons, based on (to over-simplify) amount spent and league position. Can’t disagree. It wasn’t working very well in the end but in retrospect Coleman had a fine eye for a player, and had he received the same backing as other Fulham managers, might have done even better. Or not – it doesn’t always work that way, does it?
Similarly you get people whose argument consists of saying
“I’ve been to every game since 1986; therefore I must know
better than you.” Well, yes, you do have a better bank of
specific knowledge about the club in question, just as a
player who argues that he knows better because he’s “played
the game” has greater experience of the inside of
football than a journalist. But having the resource is
not enough; you then have to use it to construct an
argument. An army may have more guns than its
enemy, but it still has to fi re them.