I would like to make the Paul Ince v. Craig Brewster argument...
BOTH - Well respected players of their time with managers, players and fans alike all in agreement
Brewster - 3 (2 and a half or whatever) seasons as a manager and still classed as inexperienced
Ince - 1st time in charge as a manager and classed as inexperienced
Brewster - Still considered to be learning his trade
Ince - He was learning his trade
Brewster - Left 1 club to go to another which showed where his heart really lay, and did not last long after a poor run of results and fired
Ince - Fired from his 1st job after poor run of results
Brewster - (Until last night had us second bottom)
Ince - Was fired from club after leading club to second bottom
Brewster - Has a board which seem scared to fire him
Ince - had a board which fired him
Now thats just some points, I could go on but from these alone I see some striking similarities and some differences. Some on here argue that Brewster is still 'learning his trade' but so was Ince and he was sacked anyway after a poor run! The board knew he wasn't up for the job and for the good of their club let him go. So why shouldn't Brewster go? He's been at 2 clubs, leaving Caley the 1st time around without doing anything really special, to go and screw up at United, only to come back here and screw us up! Why should he be allowed? Why is it 1 rule for other teams, and another for us? Ince was sacked because he wasn't the man for the job... Brewster isn't the man for the job either! He HAS HAD HIS CHANCE! TWICE! More than Ince is getting and I'm sure if a Blackburn fan came on here to see the state of what we're in and how they were in the same predicament then they would tell us to get rid of Brewster. It's like shooting a deer then just waiting for it to die rather than put it out of its misery. It isn't personal against Brewster, but it is a football team we all love and want to see do well, and while Brewster carries on then we won't see that.