I've always been a big believer in managers should get time IF they earn it, none of this romantic rubbish they have to show a clear blueprint that the projected end product is worth the pain getting there. The metrics I've always used to decide whether I should back a Chelsea manager who has inconsistent starts results wise are these...
1. Is the football sustainable?
2. What are his team selections like? Is he still playing the deadwood that caused the transition/rebuild phase in the first place or is he building his team around the players that have the potential to be part of the finished article?
3. Recruitment, are the majority of players he's bringing in on the level or have the potential to play in title winning sides?
4. Is there season by season progression?
For a manager to get time and additional trust in the midst of erratic results the answers to questions 1,3 and 4 (just 1 and 3 if he's on the first season) has to be a categoric yes and the answer to question 2 has to be the latter, if as much as one of those 4 ain't on point then it's too big a risk to give them more time in my opinion (unless there's major mitigating circumstances like injury crisis not allowing number 4 to play out). For example, for us Lampard is passing all those 4 with flying colours so far but AVB was only good on number 3, so I'm fully behind Lamps at this point but wanted AVB booted.
I don't watch United as much as you lot do so I'll let you decide how many if any of those that Ole is passing.