[Mr.Coffee]

The logic of defending Sigalet is the same logic and pie eyed homerism that brought out those valiant knights to defend Gulutzan.

A coach is paid to get results from an asset. Asset’s not performing. People look to either the asset (which they are here) or the management of the asset (coach).

Is the coach getting the most from the player? No, doesn’t seem like it.

Have any of the goalies performed well under the manager of the position? No, they haven’t.

Does it seem like the asset / goalie is improving? No.

Do we have confidence things will improve? No, not really.

Lastly I leave with this. If the goalie coach is not to blame, why have a goalie coach? Are coaches absolved of accountability? If so, why are you paying him when he isn’t getting results, has never gotten results and we don’t think he will get results in the future? Why have a goalie coach if nothing can ever be credited to them right or wrong? How do you even know then what value they bring to the table?

Sigalet should 110% be evaluated very critically here just like Gulutzan was last year. And the posters that were questioning Gulutzan last year were absolutely obviously and unequivocally correct in their assessment that coaching was the problem.