I agree sometimes WW is over the top in his slating of the players, but surely EVERYONE can see were are actually shite. We are 20th in the league for a reason.
You are basing your quite wrong conclusion on the league table, which is clearly flawed. See, this is where you're going wrong.
Dean Wilkins may have got us 7th, but that doesn't mean anything, he still didn't have a clue what he was doing. Micky Adams has taken us to 20th, but that doesn't mean anything either. Because the table lies.
So what if it takes the achievements from every match, tallies them and compares them to the tallies of everyone else in the division and ranks them accordingly? It's clearly a faulty system...
I'd like to propose a new system of ranking teams. From now on we ignore things like goals scored v goals conceded, the winner of a match will be determined by how positive the fans feel after the game.
In the event of a tie, winners will be determined based on the success a manager reached with a team 5 years or more previously.
Then, at the end of the season, the table will be discarded, and relegation/promotion will be determined by the fans, who make those decision based on who they think "deserve" it.