An article offering an opinion on where Palace currently are.
The conclusion seems to be that we are where we have been before, and that there is certainly no need to panic or probably change the manager.
I have reached a different conclusion, based on our defensive woes which I don't see changing under Sage.
Does the article persuade you that Sage is the right guy?
As others have said, the current situation is not anything like as comparable to the slow start two years ago under Glasner as Woosnam suggests.
He touches on how much more credit Glasner had in the bank at the time than Sage does now. That's certainly true. It's not the most important thing, though.
Everyone, from fans to board to players, could see that Glasners set up was coherent and appropriate. It wasn't just that he had proven his ability previously, the evidence was there in front of us on the grass, just like it is on the grass now at Forest. Whether his approach is the best one or not is a matter of opinion, but you can see that everyone has a clear idea of their job and that those jobs relate to each other.
I can't see any of that under Sage. I just can't see what he's trying to get them to do. Moreover, I can't see that they, the players, can see it either. That's the key difference that Woosnam seems to miss. I fully expect Palace to go on losing runs most years and flirt with the bottom three occasionally. No problem. Keep calm and carry on. That only works if the method is sound enough to come good over time. That's the grey cloud over Sage.
The fact we had far better players under Glasner is indisputable. I'm sure that, along with injuries, late summer arrivals, and fatigue are making life difficult for Sage. All the more reason, however, to implant a durable, sensible system and method, appropriate for the circumstances. Changing the manager wouldn't change the circumstances, but it could well deliver a better method for those circumstances.
England
Ireland
Australia
