Ultimately the manager and team will be judged by results, and to be frank thus far home form has been substantially lacking in what it takes to win matches. We're not talking top 3 opposition, this is against Fulham, Forest, and Everton, two points out of nine against teams below us. Roy's new manager bounce from last season is firmly in the past, this season I've seen nothing to suggest that he is able to take this side any further than has been achieved previously under his stewardship. I concede that this is good enough for Parish, and is why Roy may well get another year.

Edited by southnorwoodhill (20 Nov 2023 8.57pm)

No, certainly not.

I think the jury is out on Franco, who is very young and may develop into a flop, a fair player, or even a bargain in time, and also out on Henderson insofar as we simply don't know if there are undisclosed reasons for the signing.

What is certainly true is that £40m could potentially have been spent on 'here and now' improvements to give Roy a better chance of winning games in the first half of this season. The fact that it wasn't, and that we have had injuries to key players (especially attacking ones) is hugely significant in assessing the manager's performance. Like most clubs outside of the big-boys, we simply cannot maintain our best performance levels without key players.

By the time he finally packs in it, Roy will have managed us for about half of what is by far the longest top-flight spell in our history. He has, in the main, done that with a level of spending not only lower (sometimes far lower) than two-thirds of the clubs we compete against, but also lower (again, sometimes far lower) than many of his predecessors.

I doubt that has anything to do with trusting Roy in the market (managers have very little to do with signings, especially at Palace), it's just the way the dice have rolled. He never seems to be in the hotseat on the rare occasions we are able to spend. This time around he does have the benefit of the good players we signed for Vieira, but has of course lost Wilf. Pounds-for-points he must be up there with the best of them. For me, that makes his impact on the fortunes of our club comparible with any former manager bar Coppell.

Years ago I took the football coaching badges. I never worked in the professional game, but I did spend time in some interesting places with some interesting people.

Once, I was invited to a coaching demonstration by Ray Lewington at Fulham, where he and Roy were having great success at the time. After the session, Ray took a few questions. The matter of Roy's preferred tactics and reported coaching methods came up, and Ray could not have been clearer: Roy coaches 11v11, methodically, in repetitive, almost robotic detail on each and every occasion it is possible to do so. And yes, it bores the life out of the players. And yes, they beg to do something with a bit more zip. And no, he never changes.

Whether he does things any differently now I don't know, but there are videos on line of him doing this type of work at West Brom, and he was pretty famous for it. Some of the videos of Palace training sessions show short, sharp stuff, so perhaps Roy has changed. I doubt it though. It's more likely that the stuff we see is taken from the one or two times a week they are not working on shape!

One of the things I found during the coaching courses was that almost everyone, from elite footballers to semi-pros hates tactical sessions where they work methodically on shape. It's not just boring, it is often frustrating and even demoralising, to have to stop and walk through the same little details again and again when football is usually such a dynamic, intuitive and fast-paced game. In fact, the general consensus was that too much of that type of work can risk a revolt.

So why does Roy seem genuinely popular with his players?

Obviously, as Ray pointed out at Fulham, the results justify the methods. He is not just keeping clubs save in mid-table, he is keeping players, and their careers and prospects, there too. That will smooth many a bump.

Mostly though I think he just seems like a decent bloke. He is renowned for being multi-lingual, well-read and articulate, but that doesn't seem to translate into aloofness or arrogance (although by all accounts he can be a bit of a spiky character if required).

I listen to a podcast called 'Undr the Cosh' in which former journeyman footballers interview other, former journeyman players. It is striking how often they cite nothing more than basic honesty, decent manners and personal consistency as the key ingredients of the best managers they ever had, and how many managers seem to lack those things. One of the hallmarks of our stay in the top-flight has been the relative absence of drama and intrigue. I think Roy calmly, fairly and politely going about his work has a lot to do with that stability, which in turn puts us a league place or two above any club that self-destructs (of which there are usually at least one or two most years).

All in all, he will be difficult to replace.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (21 Nov 2023 11.58am)

We’d better watch out England don’t try and poach him. After last night it was clear that Southgate is all over the place.

Tony Pulis was another who applied the dull automaton method of training. It is a method that fits well with relatively weaker squads. Perhaps why Roy succeeded with Fulham and Switzerland but failed with Liverpool and England?

He is a jigsaw fit for us. Replacing him will be dead hard.

Well, ive READ his post, but, ive not heard him say anything . . . Just saying

I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold,
When a blind man cries, Lord, he feels it from his soul.
[Link]