I don't think it's that bad Stanley. With Roy we were asked to lower our expectations. The style of football was often dire and the calibre of players we were asked to accept wasn't to anyone's liking.
With Kenny, whilst it hasn't worked out, the style of football has been much better, the number of chances we've created must be much higher, and our expectations have increased as well.
I don't think anybody complained too much about the players Kenny bought at the time. The only issue was with the price and how it hasn't worked out in the League.
In my view, appointing Kenny was a gamble well worth taking. And there may yet be a case to hold our nerve and allow time for some adjusments rather than a drastic change. With Roy, whatever the reasons, we just never had that feeling.
Hmm. I agree Kenny has us playing much better football, and way more chances created. I'd say we would be better off with kenny than Roy although I think neither are right.
I think it was impossible for new owners to not give Kenny the job after how well his interim term went.
I don't however feel he's progressed the club nor do I think my expectations have got any higher, if anything they are lower, I've gone from thinking we should be getting top 4 to thinking we will hopefully compete for it.
Absolutely categorically refuse to accept the statement not too many people complained about his signings at the time bar the price tags. An incredible amount of people complained, and thought they were wrong choices regardless of price. I'm not saying everyone did, or even the majority. But plenty of people.
There are arguments to be made about if cups show improvement as a whole, or if the style of play shows improvement. But I cannot see anyone putting together a decent argument to defend one of the worst transfer windows I have ever seen in English football. Both on prices paid and the type of players bought.
