This might be off-topic, or it might not. You judge.
There's little doubt that John Neal was one of not the most popular managers we've ever had. He had charisma as well as success during his time with us.
Denis Smith was charismatic too, and we enjoyed a great promotion with him. We might even forget that we were relegated once when he was manager.
Some other managers have struggled to capture our support and loyalty.
Then there are those managers who haven't managed us... take Sam Alardyce for example. Fans of the teams he's managed just haven't taken to him. And if the fans don't like him, maybe the players don't either... and then what happens?
This article on MSN Sport is interesting - even thought provoking:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/foot...cid=spartanntp
DK might be safe in that department - most of us appreciate the blood and guts he put into every game as a player (except one maybe!) and that helps to carry him through his management apprenticeship. We used to like Dean Saunders too for a while, but many Wrexham fans dislike him intensely now - and the MSN article tells us he's wrong in his belief:
"Last night on talkSPORT, Dean Saunders tried to sell the old idea that just being in the Premier League was the ultimate thing at any cost, regardless of the quality of the entertainment on the pitch or in the dug-out. But that’s just not true. Managers now get sacked for being boring and playing boring football. Fans want fun. Not just hanging on. And that’s not in any way unreasonable.
We've done much more than just hang on this season. Probably. Yet, there have been many games where we've been doing just that, but have managed to do no worse than most of our rivals - and find ourselves in a respectable league position - even if most feel we could have done a whole lot better, if only...
Is there a danger that DK's charisma will wear thin if - obviously (say it often) - we drop out of contention over the next few games? Or if we have many more bore-draws, or Heaven forbid we lose the will to fight for every remaining point in the run-in. Is he another John Neal in the making, or might he begin to resemble a loser instead of a winner? Is he really motivating the players - or it our seeming inability to finish-off so many opponents whom we should be beating a symptom that all is not quite right?