Why is it better to make a decision/statement and then get proved wrong later, rather than to wait and see what develops? History will just record you as making decisions before you have all the information. It doesn't show any kind of moral character, it just shows questionable judgement. Sacking Adkins now may seem strange, but I'm not so blinded that I can't consider that it may be the right decision in the long run.
We can all look back and say that but then nothing would get done, you could argue Cortese should of waiting until the season finished? Logical and after all I have not seen one professional so far saying its a great decision. Matt LeTissier was saying this months ago, is he wrong? or is he now right?
