Why inexperience has become unacceptable for Gunn?

[Indy_Bones 441]

Sounds a bit odd to even question inexperience, yet after thinking about this a lot recently, particularly in light of the latest managerial appointment it got me wondering why we no longer want to give it a chance?Think back a fair few years, and we had a number of managers who took over the ''hotseat'' despite little to no actual managerial roles previously.Ken Brown (Asst Mgr) -- Dave Stringer (Youth Coach) -- Mike Walker (Reserve Mgr) -- John Deehan (Asst Mgr) -- Gary Megson (Player/Coach)The performance of the first three managers on there can hardly be faulted, combining with our best extended period as a top flight side. Whilst both Dixie and Megson performed very poorly results wise, this has to be mitigated against the fact that Chase sold virtually every top player we had and refused to invest any significant funds in new options. Left with a threadbare squad bereft of it''s finest talent, it''s hard to see how either of them could have done much better in the role.O''Neill we all know about and would have been a great manager if we''d have given him the funds we''d promised, but even his managerial experience was limited to a single league club in Wycombe.Along comes Rioch, a manager who''s stats prove his ability at virtually every club he managed - apart from Norwich...again citing lack of investment on players as the key problem, along with more sales of talent such as BellamyHamilton was then appointed, another manager with a lot of experience (if not ability), results were still poor.Then however we appoint Worthington (asst mgr), seen very much as a cheap option at the time, but who went on to be the best manager we''d had in 5 years at that point, and statistically performing better than Stringer and Walker despite the periods they had at the top.Without going on too much further, let me summarise:Our best results have come under managers appointed with little to no managerial experience, only Martin O''Neill did any better than this, so in the last 29 years (since Ken Brown''s appointment), experienced managers have had very little to offer over less experienced options.In fact, the much maligned Peter Grant had a better record than either Rioch, Hamilton or Roeder - all of whom had excellent managerial experience.So onto the main (and final point) of this post.15-20 or so years ago, had the club done the same at the time and appointed Gunn (relatively speaking), we''d probably have been far more receptive to the appointment than we are now, yet recent poor seasons starting with Worthington''s decline seem to have skewed our opinions somewhat. Gunn has been put into a similar position that Deehan, Megson and Worthington were, with a pretty poor squad, already in a poor position, and no funds to sort the problem.Worthington''s first set of games were hardly electric, 6 wins in his first 16 official games - only 1 better than Gunn, and I do feel that Worthy had a better squad at his disposal (certainly from a commitment and attitude perspective).Don''t get me wrong, I''d have gone for another option than Team Gunn, but I think the current overreactions being shown to the appointment are pretty shocking. I wonder how many would have been as vicious had this forum been readily available when Brown, Stringer and Walker were appointed?You want to hate the board - fineYou choose to boycott matches - fair enoughBut for god''s sake, give Gunn a chance to make some signings and work out new options with Butterworth and Crook, before demanding a hanging...Indy.