And if he does pull the trigger don't think anyone will be eating humble pie. Some people were just willing to give Irvine a chance the same as some were willing to give Clarke and Mel a chance.
This in a nutshell. Irvine wasn't anyone's first choice (or second, third, or fortieth) but he was hired. I was a Mel supporter because it was a stance against the club and I genuinely wanted him to do well. I'm an Irvine supporter for the same reason - because I want him, and by association, the team to do well. If I have to weigh up my feelings towards managers in a statement it's that while the team does well I'm happy. Nothing is to say any manager would be a guaranteed success here by any means. And if a manager fails to do well here I won't vilify him or express anger at him. It doesn't make me a happy clapper by any means. As long as a manager gives his best (regardless of if he falls short or not) I back them.
We could have motormouth Sherwood in charge talking garbage every post match interview and making us look sour, or we could, until he leaves, treat Irvine with respect. He's not disgracing the club, he's not giving us a bad name, and until he does he should be treated as a guy doing a job to the best of HIS ability, not judged against a speculative benchmark of what we think someone else may have done.
Suggesting someone like Pulis would be a better candidate (as has been said) sacrifices the playing style others crave. Efficient football isn't always good football. Good football isn't always winning football. Let's quit speculating who can or would do a better job and back the man, whoever and whenever, is in charge of our team, until he passes on that role.
