Seventwo, I have no problem with passion but it shouldn't overrule common sense.
You ask what my explanation is for erratic performances, and then say I don't listen.
I have made it absolutely clear many times that I don't think there is one simple explanation.
The results are erratic every match-day. Just look at them.
How do YOU explain that? And if confidence was high for the Bristol City, which we won despite all the changes, why on earth doesn't the same argument apply for the following match? There is absolutely no logic in saying Mowbray ruined the team's confidence in the intervening nine days!
Surely, if there are "good" and "bad" managers, and managers have total responsibility for results (which is what you argue above), the teams managed by the "good" ones would win every week!
I just cannot believe you are saying nothing else counts.
I just take games week by week and I try to avoid generalised theories as much as possible because I honestly admit I don't know why the form-levels and performances of individuals and teams vary so much. What I do know is that it's complicated (and one of the things that makes football fascinating). For sure, though, this simplistic thing of saying "It's the manager, of course" just doesn't meet the case. If it did, the same men would be successful every season, wherever they went, and this is blatantly not what happens.
And Champs, you seem to be saying, "Let's ship out one mediocre manager and get another one in - just in case it works."
I actually don't care if that happens, as I hold no particular brief for Mowbray.
What I object to is twisting everything that happens to make it reflect badly on the manager, in order to be able to put the argument that he is the only obstacle to success.