I don't think anyone is or has done any re-writing history.

From memory Roeder started well, but his dicking about had us dropping like a stone which we barely recovered from but avoided relegation in his first season.

Hughton did pretty much the same but without the dicking about with chopping people in and out.

Roeder seems to want to try to just get lucky with whoever he'd loaned in turning out to be good enough. Hughton bought players who just didn't really fit his system, if he did in fact have a system.

I don't think anyone believes Gunn and Grant were better or worse managers. Just different. Gunn was appeasement for the vileness of Roeder, Grant was giving someone a fair chance to step into the big seat. I recall he was rather stitched up by players being sold late in the window without replacements? Hucks was fairly complimentary about him. They're just judged differently, and they have to be, because they didn't come in as experienced managers.

Context is everything.

Posted By: trafford_canary, Sep 30, 15:33:45