I would like to think that given 8 years and christ knows how many different players the minimum requirement would be to leave in a higher division than we started in. While it is well documented I loathe the man it hasn't always been the case. Some of the best and worst games I have ever witnessed have been under Warnock. Whereas I have never felt the shame being a blade that I did on that day against West Brom.
I have never said however that I dont think he was capable at championship level. My argument on the footballing front is that he could never keep a team in the Premiership. And when it all goes fits up somehow it is never his fault. I read his book and quickly the pattern emerges. All starts well then things take a turn for the worse and Warnock goes into panic mode buying lots of low quality rather than investing in a good quality player. Then he gets the push but its not down to him.
As for better off when he left us, of course we were but didn't Kevin McCabe have some little influence in that? It was post Warnock that McCabe took leave of his senses employing idiots and spending money like water.
Warnock has so far never managed to keep a club in the premier league/first division, although we will never know whether or not he would have managed to do so with QPR. He was certainly making a better fist of it than Hughes has done this season.
And the only other side he took to the top flight apart from us was Notts County. Hardly a great surprise that he failed to keep them up. Some would regard it as a minor miracle that he got them there in the first place, rather than a failure that he didn't manage to keep them there.
With regard to our relegation, I think he can quite rightly claim that it wasn't all his fault. We finished 17th out of 19 clubs that played by the rules. One club chose to play outside of those rules in order to gain the services of a player that they would not otherwise have been able to use. Yes, matches and league positions are sorted out by on the pitch performances, but other sides performances also have a bearing on how we do. One club cheated and thereby gained an unfair advantage over us. In a tight race that can be crucial. I see it as no different to an athlete gaining an advantage by using a performance enhancing drug. After the 1988 olympic 100 metres final no one would argue that the placings should stand and that Ben Johnson should retain his gold medal and Karl Lewis put up with silver.
So, yes we were relegated, but in very very controversial circumstances, and Warnock (as well as anyone else associated with Sheffield United) has every right to feel aggrieved.
Anyway, I like the fact he will not accept blame. That shows me that he cares very deeply about his record and doesn't like it being tarnished. Is he any different to some of the top premier league managers in this respect? No. Look at how Ferguson etc look for excuses when things have gone against them. Do any of them ever say, "sorry, it was all my fault guv"? No they don't.
And what has the fact that Warnock was at the club for seven and a half years got to do with anything? For the vast majority of that time he was assembling and keeping together a side on a shoe string. Significant backing only came along in 2005-6 season when he was able to sign Ifill (which was his biggest transfer fee paid up until that time), and was able to increase the wage bill which is probably the only reason we managed to get players like Unsworth and Shippereley. So at the first time of asking when given any significant funds, we got promoted.
Of course Kevin McCabe had some influence in us being better off by the time Warnock left. But it seems to me you are happy to accept that others influenced our successes under Warnock, but not happy when Warnock blames other factors when things aren't going so well.
