Neville Dalton is a journalist and a
I'm really going to try not to let this column become a rant at Paul Hart.
I've got a lot of time for the bloke - indifferent managerial record, but an excellent one at bringing through young players wherever he has been.
And from what I can tell from the outside, he seems to have transformed Pompey's youth set-up into a much-admired, professional-looking academy that promises to provide at least a semblance of home-grown stars of the next generation.
I quite like his measured, urbane approach to media interviews, and how he conducts himself with dignity when speaking on behalf of Portsmouth Football Club.
And I even liked much of the football I saw from the first few teams he sent out as caretaker - and then interim - manager following Tony Adams' sacking.
I must admit, though, I wasn't quite as impressed as the vast majority of fans and local media appeared to be when they took the win over Manchester City in his first game in charge and the draw at mighty Stoke in the following game as evidence of a corner turned in the club's fight to avoid relegation.
One win, one draw, and suddenly Paul Hart had put the club on the right track. The feeling gathered momentum as a host of senior players at the club came forward to express their faith in him in a way that none of them had his predecessor.
I remained to be convinced - and am still waiting.
For apart from what is looking increasingly like an isolated victory in his first game, how different are Paul Hart's and Tony Adams' actual achievements so far?
I was pleased with the City result and the way the team went about achieving it. Clearly Hart has won the respect of the players when Adams - a player twice as good as his successor, and with a decent track record as assistant to Harry Redknapp - never could.
But what really has actually changed where it matters most at the moment - on the pitch during games and on the scoreboard at the final whistle?
Yes, they played impressively at home against
Then, we performed reasonably well, on the back of what was at the time a poor run, admittedly against a poor
Or Villa a couple of weeks before that. Or Arsenal just after Christmas.
Under
There was the gung-ho approach of his early games, when they were generally very entertaining, with some excellent Pompey passing - and then we lost or drew.
And there were the later games, when the manager tightened up the approach, threw a blanket of defensive midfielders in front of the panicky defence, leaving one up front and others often in inappropriate positions, for what were generally dire games - and then we lost or drew.
Under Hart - from what I have seen so far - we appear to have taken elements of both the Adams approaches: a generally more solid defence (that still managed to concede two goals to struggling Stoke and another late, late one to shot-shy Middlesbrough), some decent football in midfield, where the same number of players lurk but usually with a bit more fluidity, and one man chasing shadows up front.
Whatever you think of footballing aesthetes, when it comes to the bottom line, there is little to choose between them.
Unbeaten run
Hart has presided over that first-day win; a narrow defeat and two draws (including one against an even lower-placed team in the North East, who played the last quarter of an hour with ten men).
I fully accept it's too early to make judgments after four games (as it was with
And isn't it noticeable just how that impression has been created? A host of players queue up to sing Hart's praises, while one or two who were clearly not impressed by
And in the media, the reports in the first weeks of the Hart era were pretty generous and upbeat. After Pompey's win over City and draw at Stoke, The News was hailing Pompey's "unbeaten run", for God's sake.
And the euphoria seemed to sweep along many of us fans. The message boards were awash with optimism as Hart came in and steadied the ship.
Mind you, that was before our defeat to
Not quite so liberal in our praise now as the more realistic picture of a string of results unravels rather than an isolated blip or two.
That's not to say Paul Hart is not the man for the job. As I said, it's too early to judge, and once the powers-that-be had decided to replace
I still believe Pompey are capable of avoiding the drop (though by no means certain to), but no more or less so than I was when
But what alarms me now is the re-emergence of the behaviour which probably did most to undermine
Or to put it more bluntly, picking the wrong bloody team!
And what do we see?
Where has Nugent played under Hart? Wide on the left!
Adams fielded Jermaine Pennant in a central role on his debut, and often paired two enthusiastic but limited defensive midfielders in the centre of the park (admittedly often of necessity).
Now Pennant is outperforming most of his full-time colleagues in his correct wide position, but is sometimes replaced by left-footed Nadir Belhadj during a game.
Niko Kranjcar now fills that advanced central role in which Pennant featured in that first game. But still there is no partner for Crouch in attack, while Nugent patrols the left-hand side of the pitch with the same enthusiasm he showed when performing for
And still the centre of the pitch boasts less-than-inspiring central midfielders - this time the hard-working
Goal-hanger
In the absence of any meaningful comment from the club, you have to assume Basinas and Gekas are not injured and available for team selection.
Anyone - and I mean anyone - who believes Mullins is a better midfielder, or even a better bet in Pompey's current plight, than Basinas is deluded.
And to deny Gekas the chance to score the goals Pompey so desperately need to pull clear of the relegation mire is bizarre, bordering on the criminal.
I believe the reason the Greek international forward is not in the team is that Hart is determined to bolster the midfield at the expense of the attack, displaying blatant caution to try to prevent us going back into freefall.
I understand his thinking, but he can surely see it is still not working. Two goals conceded against Stoke hardly suggests major progress.
What is more, when Redknapp returned for his second Pompey spell with the club in a worse position than now, it was our attacking verve that rescued us from the brink.
In any case, to deny Gekas even a place on the bench is incredible and very difficult for us football fans to fathom.
He appears to have a reputation as a goal-hanger, which I quite understand does not fit in with Hart's admirable penchant for dynamic, hard-working attackers (I won't call them forwards, since only one has played in that position under Hart).
And Crouch has continued to perform admirably under the new Pompey boss.
But why not at least give him a chance as a substitute? Is the player who is keeping him off the bench - Kanu - an example of that wholehearted, run-all-day-for-the-team player?
Or maybe that other Nigerian - John Utaka - is?
Instead, Hart mutters something about sticking to players he knows (not that he appeared to know many of them very well when he took over the role, as he admitted).
We can't afford getting-to-know-you sessions at this stage of the season, and even if we could, surely circumstances dictate action?
Thank goodness Redknapp didn't wait half a season before throwing the like of Benjani, Sean Davis and Pedro Mendes into the side when our Premier League future was at stake.
Now Gekas has spoken out in public about his unfair isolation. He has also "spoken" (presumably in no uncertain terms) to Hart about his feelings. And he has refused to conduct an audition in the reserves to prove himself.
Those actions have probably cost him the chance of proving his worth to Pompey - and denied Pompey the chance of possibly benefiting from his goalscoring.
Let's hope the key figures in all this see sense before it is too late.