I see where you're coming from, and I think we agree on certain points, but there are a few areas where I'd like to push back, as I think you're oversimplifying the dynamics of this debate.
First, you agreed that we're not far apart, which I appreciate, but when it comes to this idea of evidence, I think you’re overlooking something.
You mention that those who believe Ange will fail are drawing from a 'far smaller pool of evidence,' but that’s an assumption imo, people have different standards for what they consider valid evidence; for some, Ange's success in certain leagues may not weigh as heavily as the difficulties of transitioning to a tougher league (even you yourself admit it is a big step up for him) but you view this as irrational from what I gather, but they might see it as caution based on past experiences with other managers who struggled after making similar moves; It doesn’t make their pool of evidence inherently weaker—it just comes from a different perspective.
Now, you emphasize that some people present their beliefs as facts, and I agree that's frustrating, but it’s not the fact-stating that’s the root issue—it’s the emotional certainty behind it, which applies equally to those defending Ange.
You've acknowledged that your own position is based on cautious optimism, which I respect. However, it's important to recognize that this cautious optimism might still come across as categorical to those who don't share your belief, you see their certainty as misplaced; they may see yours the same way; In both cases, it's a matter of conviction without definitive proof, and that’s where the conversation often breaks down.
Regarding Shadydan, I disagree that his intent is irrelevant in this situation, sure, someone can make a valid point while being a provocateur, but when you repeatedly engage in bad faith or trolling, it erodes the value of what you're saying.
You claim my feelings about Shady don’t negate the validity of his post, but intent does matter in discourse, we both know that, If someone only shows up to point-score or troll, they aren’t contributing to a genuine conversation and that's what weakens their argument; football, as you know, is an emotional sport, and it’s easy to take snapshots of heated moments during a game to make others look foolish in hindsight. This kind of behavior doesn’t foster meaningful dialogue, it just serves to drive wedges between posters and form clicks, which we see all over the forum.
As for your point that some fans will never be won over, I think that’s an overly rigid view.
You seem convinced that those who are vocal in their criticism will never change their minds, but I believe that’s an oversimplification again; Fans ARE fickle—football is emotional, and people react in the heat of the moment, especially when results aren't going their way; we’ve seen it time and again: people who are highly critical when things are bad can quickly change their tune with a string of good results. Your 'NOT. A. FUCKING. CHANCE!' response feels like an overstatement, because history shows that sustained success has a way of converting even the most ardent critics. It might not happen overnight, but it’s far from impossible mate, I truly believe that, of course there are bad actors (or idiots) but they are such a minority when compared to people like myself who are critical but are also capable of being won over.
On the topic of consistency, you say that some fans are critical regardless of results, but again, that’s a small minority; most fans, even the vocal ones, do respond to consistency on the pitch, football is about momentum, and it’s only natural that fans get swept up in that—both positively and negatively; even those who are harsh critics now may well soften their stance if Ange builds a track record of success (this is why I think point scoring serves ZERO purpose) yes, some people ARE entrenched in their views, but dismissing all critics as unreachable doesn’t account for the complexity of fan behavior imo, they’re not a monolith, and it’s important to differentiate between those who are genuinely skeptical and those who are just trolling or have an agenda for and against the manager (which I agree, we have a few of them on here both in the Ange in and Ange out camp.)
Ultimately, I think where we differ is in how we interpret these criticisms, I see them as part of the natural ebb and flow of football discourse, where opinions are shaped by results, context, and emotion; you seem to see them as fixed and unmovable, which I think is an overly pessimistic view of the fanbase personally (I don't mean to be offensive when I say that, it's simply my view, correct me if I am wrong!) People may be negative now, but football has a way of turning opinions around—often faster than we expect. In the end, it’s results on the pitch that will do the talking, not entrenched beliefs or categorical statements on a forum.
