Quote ="Mild Rover"In narrow terms of consistency (not quality) of performance (not results), I think it is a legitimate question.
I think it'd be funnier if we thought we had a top quality team that was fundamentally underperforming for some reason. 'When you look at our team on paper, we should be top 4', that sort of thing.
First step to improving is accurately identifying shortcomings, even when other explanations would maybe be more palatable.'"
That will go over his head too....
