It really is amazing to me how many people make a case that our manager isn't good enough by producing "what if" statistics.
"If we didn't have Grealish"
"If we didn't have Martinez"
"If the season started in January"
It's one thing to debate reality, performance, tactics etc. but when the justification for an argument is that we wouldn't be where we are without a bunch of factors that are impossible to measure (because they didn't happen) then I can't see the point in a debate.
So what if Grealish has helped us to 15 points? Enjoy it! But using it as a justification for the manager not being good enough..... Ludicrous. Alex Ferguson once said that Schmeichel was worth five wins a season, and Clough broke the transfer record to get Shilton for the same reasons..... Does that make them bad managers because they "relied on one player for 15 points a season."
Grealish wasn't as effective under Bruce or DiMatteo. He was ignored by Lambert, and Sherwood loved him yet couldn't get him to be consistent. Jack Grealish is an exceptional player, but he's not the sole reason we are where we are. Use that as an argument and you can say he was also solely responsible for us finishing where we did last year...
Every good team has good players, some are even exceptional. Take good players out of a good team and guess what...... the team isn't as good. Doesn't mean the manager is to blame......