On a general point I think our lack of winning things for over two decades has started to impose itself on what people want from humdrum match to humdrum match.
In the 90s we’d just won something and the very real threat of relegation meant points at all cost was acceptable.
Moyes lifting us about 6/7 places on average up the table meant that some stylistic issues were ignored / not relevant.
But at the end, even when we were playing decent stuff, many people were saying it was dreadful etc. I think because we knew there were no chances of relegation but we still weren’t winning.
So “excitement” was used as a reason to complain.
RM went rapidly down hill in people’s eyes when results went south but also, in large parts of 14/15 we were sleep inducingly boring.
Again last year, even with better results than for the previous two years, there were consistent complaints of not being entertained.
Therefore appointing someone who, even if they do well, is likely to play “boring” football, was always likely to end up like this. Of course it’s worse as we’re not getting too many good results.
Some people claim that wanting entertainment is harking back to a non existent past, and that’s probably true bar the odd golden patch.
But it is a reality of the past quarter of a century (that seems a long time phrased in such a way) and modern life probably, that we are wanting something more than just results.
It doesn’t have to be passing football but it does, seemingly, have to be aggressive in terms of putting the opposition under pressure.
We’re passive at both defending (eg we sit deep rather than press high) and attacking (eg a lack of commitment of numbers forward).
It’s out of sync with what the crowd is wanting / expecting so fundamental changes are required for the situation to be tenable.