Looking at points totals is actually LESS arbitrary than looking at finishing positions. We finished third last season - but if Leicester had taken when one of their chances at 0-0 on the final day and beaten us, we would have been fifth. It would be stupid and arbitrary to judge the manager on one game - this is why it's much better to use the number of points, wins, goals scored, and so on, over the whole season to judge the team's performance. Finishing fifth with 75+ points because everyone above gets more than 80 would mean that we progressed but the competition got much stronger: at that point you would probably be justified to say that the manager improved the team but upper management failed to invest properly.
66 points is generally around 6th place (it was only enough for top 4 twice in the last 10 seasons). It's poor. We have the world's most expensive defender, a 50m full-back on the right, over 200m worth of talent in midfield including World Cup winner Paul Pogba and two times Premier League champion Nemanja Matic, and a front three that got 62 goals between them last season in all competitions and have an average age of 22. Yes, to challenge for trophies we have significant weaknesses that must be addressed but doing better (winning more games, scoring more goals, being closer to the top teams) than the last two seasons really should be the bare minimum expectation.
Evaluating performance without any consideration to the trends and environment in your industry is a poor way to do business. Does not matter the industry. I understand that a hard and set number is comfortable for you to gauge progress, but it is intellectually deficient and flawed. Imagine you were head of sales for an airline right now, and your CEO came to you and said, "sorry,
@Siorac, we are going to have to fire you, because sales are down 57% over the last 6 months." Clearly, your boss has not factored in why you failed to reach your target.
There has to be some sort of qualitative and quantitative criteria for performance. And that cannot be viewed through a simplistic prism, a binary yes or no. I get that points earned is a good measure of progress, but it isn't the ONLY measure. If De Gea doesn't muff a few saves and clearances, we probably have 6-9 points more -- the magical number 75. Does that mean Ole's safe?
In today's society, we tend to pick a narrative that fits our worldview, our political beliefs or even our thoughts about our football club; then we assemble "facts" to fit that narrative. The world, quite simply, is much more complex than that, and this confirmation bias has infected every corner of the earth.
I choose to stand for nuance. I believe that we can objectively look at a problem and understand that there is a gray area, and it is okay to be less than 100% sure about our beliefs. I am generally a "Ole's at the wheel" guy, and I support him. Am I at 100%? No. But, truth be told, I was never at 100% on SAF either, and he was the greatest manager that ever lived.
A varied set of criteria is always better than a single set to evaluate performance. The fact that Sir Alex Ferguson would have been sacked 4 out of his first 5 seasons based on your standard tells us that ultimatums can be a terrible thing.
