I think 'Manager Out' stuff is often part of a misunderstanding of the nature of football, manifest in the now common expression that 'he' has lost however many games out of 'his' last ten, or 'he' has a good record against 'him'.
Years ago there was far too little thoughtful analysis of tactics and technical organisation. Now there is far too much, to the point that it is back-projected onto events in a way that has little relationship to what actually just happened on the grass. There is a whole industry built on overstating the effect of such-and-such a coaches 'philosophy', on how Liverpool v City, or whoever, is a matter of Pep and his possession-based method against Klopp and his fast-counter attacking style, as if the presence on the field of world-class footballers in fantastic condition, and who are trying very hard, is incidental. As if it is anything other than a game of very fine margins that includes luck.
The role and significance of the manager has mutated into something previously unrecognisable. They are held more directly responsible for smaller and smaller on-field things over shorter and shorter terms, even though they have less power and control than ever. His football is stodgy. His football is free-flowing. He plays with a high-line. He plays on the counter. He was flying but has now lost his sparkle. To hear some media and fan assessments, you would think these guys play against each other, 1v1, to decide the game. Tactics matter, but its not chess.
Also, the manager is now responsible not only for players mentality, but for outside perceptions of their mentality. The players just don't seem to be running for him. He seems to have lost the dressing room. They've stopped listening to him. Mindset and motivation, however, are not so easy to prove. Many of us are diagnosing mental weakness from the stands or the sofa having never met a single one of the people involved, and with no insight whatsoever to what is said and done behind closed doors. From the outside it looked like the players and/or manager were half asleep against Macclesfield. However, Franny Jeffers, the Macclesfield assistant manager, was on some podcast the other day and said that at half time Glasner and Guehi were in fact going at each other full on in a way that surprised him. We project weak leadership or sloppy culture onto poor performances, just like we project strong minds and hearts onto good results. In truth, we haven't got a clue what these people are like with each other behind closed doors.
Even if a player is unmotivated or lazy, the solution rarely involves the manager reaching into the players mind and flicking some switch. That idea is a remanent from the days when big characters like Shankly and Clough would talk up their own abilities in that respect, and believe their own hype. What is often overlooked, is that their players were on very average wages, and entirely beholden to the whims of their manager for their financial futures. No wonder they hung on the bosses every word. Players don't have that fear now. They are far more secure in every respect than the manager. What if, for example, Johnson or Pino are playing so badly because they are arrogant twats who couldn't care less, or they are gutted and deeply regret moving to us when they could have stayed where they were? What possible sway would Glasner have over them? The players would need to be carefully traded out for as little a loss as possible, something that could take a long time. The manager can't spike their Lucozade with mind-altering drugs!
None of which is to suggest that the manager, with his tactics, training, and how he leads by example around the place, don't matter. Perhaps we are right to see Glasner as the cause of these listless performances. My thinking on that is twofold:
Firstly, we don't actually know what he is like at work. Even his media output, including his (unforgivable, in my view) outburst after Sunderland doesn't show us what he is like behind the scenes. Perhaps he is taking every care in his handling of the players mindsets. Perhaps, in his day to day work, he remains the manager most of us held him to be this time last year. We just can't know. If Glasner was chucking it in behind the scenes, though, I cannot imagine Parish would not know about it. For any of us to say that Glasner has given up and doesn't care is just frustrated guesswork from a position of ignorance.
Secondly, if we fall into the trap of seeing the managers tactics as the prime reason we win or lose, and the level of performance within those tactics as the direct result solely of his ability to motivate the players, we fall into the trap of overestimating the importance of the manager generally. He is a key part, but not the kingpin upon whom all things depend and can be blamed or praised. His work is vital, but not nowhere near as impactful as wider circumstances.
It might be that a new manager with a different approach leads to a bit of a positive bounce (although that cannot be guaranteed), or better suits the players (I believe now that it would). Even so, sooner or later Palace will play badly for a sustained period, and get poor results. Will we just constantly recycle the manager every time? We have done very well out of not being that kind of club, by staying calm as others destabilise themselves and crumble.
I wouldn't be too sad or surprised if Glasner does get the sack, but I also wouldn't be in anything like as big a rush as many on here to give him the boot as part of some indignant, crowd-pleasing performance like they do at Spurs or West Ham. I don't think it helps Palace to act like that. It's not playing to our strengths in the long term.