Ricky Sbragia, the former reserve team coach at Manchester United, is convinced that his former club has acted rashly by choosing to sack David Moyes as manager after less than a year.
The Scot was dismissed on Tuesday following a miserable spell in charge at Old Trafford, with a defeat by Everton his last act at a club he only joined last summer.
The pressures of working at United are known to Sbragia, now manager of Scotland's Under-19 side. He has this week been working with his squad at a training camp ahead of next month's European Championship Elite Round in England and has admitted that he was taken aback to learn that Moyes had been dismissed.
Sbragia - who was sacked as Sunderland manager in 2009, despite saving the club from relegation the season before - believes that Moyes had inherited a long-term project and that the United hierarchy moved too quickly to move him on.
"I don't think it was long enough," said Sbragia, who served as reserve team coach at Old Trafford between 2002 and 2005. "He was on a six-year contract, so it was a six-year plan he would have had. Listen, it's nice to get up and running right away but sometimes it's difficult.
"What happens if they bring in another manager and he doesn't do well in the first 10 months, do you get rid of him? I personally think they should have stuck with Davie Moyes. He was in a settling-in period as well, remember. Getting to know the players, the club, the staff. So I'm sad to see him go."
The pressure on Moyes to make an immediate impression had been unrelenting, particularly as he was following on from Sir Alex Ferguson. Sbragia acknowledged that the doyen of Scottish coaching was not a big hit in his first few months at Old Trafford either.
"It's happened to many managers where they have gone in and not done well and then a year later . . . look at Alex Ferguson when he went in at Manchester United," he added. "He didn't do particularly well at first because it's just about rebuilding the club.
"I thought they should have given [Moyes] two or three years and then looked at the bigger picture. But they've made a decision."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article