So Malky wouldng have kept us up either

Best part is people started banging about this ratio that MM had and we would have stayed up.

Now their saying no-one could predict what he could of achieved.

Its not just about ratios and whether Malky would have kept us up. Its about the valuable points we have dropped because of Tans descision to replace him. Not only did the transition at the worst possible part of the season cost us points but also the undermining of Malky during the last few weeks of his reign. Anyone who thinks that the transition did not cause us to lose points is extremely naive regardless of what side of the argument they sit.

it could be argued that (purely in terms of the fixture list) it was a good time to change the manager. Arsenal, Man City and Man United away all coming up, meant a likely period with little points but time enough for the new manager to get his feet under the table.

With Sunderland at home and a shocking west ham who were getting smashed week in, week out coming up, really looked like a great time to have a transition at the club

the Sunderland game had Malkys dirty prints all over it. First half we looked free of the shackles that he had put on us and played some of the best football we had all season. Second half was Malky Tactics, pure and simple.

Ill grant you the West Ham result, but looking at our recent woeful record against them and the fact they went on a brilliant run of games after ours then the result isnt all that surprising.

Free of shackles? Id say we played better than that up at fulham but thats just opinion, but its harsh to say he put shackles on us. Plus you simply cant blame the second half on him and say the first half was because he wasn't there.

Fe they went on a great run, but that's because they exploited our situation where we had no direction because of the transition of managers meaning we had contrasting tactics. This kick started their run, in a normal situation with a settled squad and manager we would of most likely have one.

says who though? apart from his very first game in charge, our record against West Ham under malky was beyond terrible.

Why does the record matter? Every game is different.....

Why does the record matter? Every game is different.....

So in that case, what does West Ham's form at the time matter? every game is different?

Why does the record matter? Every game is different.....

So in that case, what does West Ham's form at the time matter? every game is different?

Form has a psychological affect on the opposing players and they have less confidence as a result. This was evident when they played us as they were diabolical to begin with but our situation meant our players were also not mentally prepared. A team's record against another has no affect on the game.

Malky couldnt keep up his dick after a neckful of viagra

He couldn't even resolve a simple issue between him and Conway.