No personal knowledge of what Clark was like as a man, and he did look more or less as though he knew what he was doing for the first four months after his appointment. But from the end of the 1996/7 season onwards, his performance was abject. At that stage, he had a squad, including several of his own acquisitions, that had just managed a fairly decent end to the season, and he was handed a very handsome transfer budget by the standards of that division back then. To leave us two-thirds of the way through the following campaign one place off the foot of the table and averaging less than a point a game was truly pathetic, definitely worse than Ball in my book. I knew that Mad Frank had lost the plot when, having announced to all the world in the summer that new boy Tony Vaughan had been recruited to fill the problem left-back slot, he was moaning a few weeks later that Vaughan's poor form owed to having to play out of position at left back.
Anyway, back on topic. As for Ball, it shouldn't have taken the benefit of hindsight to know he was a poor appointment. Yes, in his previous post at Southampton, they'd avoided the drop twice but he was aided by the exceptional form there of Matt LeTissier. I'm one of those posters on this thread who was underwhelmed by Brian Horton, despite him coming across as a dignified, likeable man who inspired some superb attacking football; those displays were very much the exception rather than the rule, and I thought we could probably do better. But if asked whether it was worth sacrificing Horton so we could hire Ball, I'd have responded with a resounding no and the latter's performance in the job showed why.