Fine. Yet you are also clearly missing my very simple point. Which is that you, in your theorising (rather than your match reports) are selective in the evidence you use, and it's always negative.
You don't bang on about how we've improved Fraser, King, Wilson, Ramsdale, Brooks, Cook, Ake, etc. etc. you talk in terms of our failures and pin it on your perceived deficiencies which you admit yourself is blind speculation on your part.
Take Mings, who wasn't even a centre half before he came here and left as one that some other team rated at £26m and had England potential. Clearly there is a non-negative way if looking at our impact on him as a player. You? Nope, it's down to Villa, even though he looked just as good for us in that position as he has for them in my opinion (mainly looks the part but has dodgy moments).
Jordon Ibe is apparently the best player in training and looks like he's got all the attributes. If someone can get a tune out of him they will show up Jurgen Klopp, Eddie Howe, and tbh Brendan Rogers, who also didn't get much out of him from what I saw. Obvs that won't come into your arguments, it will be all down to Howe's deficiencies despite the long list of players he's clearly improved.
Why do you think we are able to sign better players now than PL year 1? Because amongst players Howe has a brilliant reputation as a trainer and improver of players. This isn't people selectively citing examples on the Internet it's actual footballers staking their careers on his skills.
How's that for binary evidence?
