At the end of last season, the view held by many Addicks about Phil Parkinson ran something like this:
1. He was a stopgap manager because he was the all the club could afford (certainly something in that).
2. He was part of the 'Super Alan Pardew' camp now weaving its magic at Southampton. Hence he was part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
3. He was tactically inept and unable to motivate his players.
4. As long as he was manager season ticket sales and attendances would slump at The Valley.
5. The club was likely to be relegated to League 2.
Over the summer he won a grudging respect from some Addicks for doing his best to fashion a squad in a resource constrained and uncertain situation, including the most protracted takeover bid in history. Proposition (4) was disproved at the Wycombe match.
The Addicks first team have made an excellent start to the season, not flawless, but certainly good enough. A new narrative I have heard is that it is because we have players like Bailey, Shelvey and Racon. Undoubtedly that is the case and we need to retain them. But it would seem that if the team does badly it is the manager's fault. If it does well, none of the credit goes to him.
I don't think Parky is a tactical genius. But I do think he is good enough to get us out of League 1 which is what we want for now. After all, he did it at Colchester.