Lots of people here are incredibly emotionally attached to the idea that Ange is categorically a fraud who never should have been considered for the role in the first place and essentially can't be assessed as a "normal" "real" manager because he's just some random Aussie bloke mashing buttons on a Playstation controller.What I'm debating is people trying to discount the first 10 and using all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify their bogus arguments.
Because that's stupid and obviously incorrect, it leads to a lot of very bad, unconvincing arguments in response to the ACTUAL question of whether Ange is our best option to kick on and improve as we face the gauntlet of a brutally high level of competition twice a week.
Being able to recognize the things Ange has done well, and some of the ways in which they may not translate going forward would considerably strengthen those arguments, but they're so passionately committed to the idea of Ange as a novice contest winner they can't conceive of it.



