This is closer to fantasy than anything Objective View has posted.
What, hoping that serious consideration is being given to a number of candidates?
Look, I get your anti Mary stance, that's fine , you're entitled to hold it. I get your anti Board stance, again, no probs. Neither you nor I know for certain though what is being considered by the Board. I would consider hoping for something worthwhile from them would fall more into the category of blind faith rather than fantasy.
However maintaining that the Board is changing their minds on a 'week to week' basis, as old mate does, without a shred of evidence to support such a view is dumb. It might well be true, but I would seriously doubt it. I would be surprised if even our much maligned mob are that dumbf**k stupid.
More frightening is the prospect that the decision is made already and we are stuck with McGregor, rightly or wrongly. Nothing to support, just a bad feeling. Comments from that O'Connor knob don't make me feel any better about it.
The problem I have is I find it hard to be convinced that there is a single definitive alternative available. They all have their own foibles and faults. My preference is probably Daniel Anderson, but many have pointed to flaws in his resume as well. I know you are a proponent of Taylor, and I am tending to think he might be the best of the remaining available options. In the end though I fear it's moot.
Entrenched View said:
FFS Bottle, what holistic results based set of criteria could be applied to Mary?! He's coached for an entire 10 games no less.
HE DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR CONSIDERATION.
The rationale in here sometimes beggars belief.
Your entrenched view noted. The fact that you don't understand what variables should be considered in making a decision speaks volumes, so there is no need to shout.
