It's a matter of plausibility. Between our wordings and opinions, any sane person would find mine more plausible. Maybe you should go take a look at some RM forums following those Clasico results to see what sort of impact they had on the assessment of the manager. No one's saying CL results were inconsequential (one would have to a simpleton of your level to come to such a conclusion). What is true that even in the absence of serious CL fixtures, Lope wasn't allowed to continue after RM got embarrassed by Barca.
And this bit would be part of the conversation. But you seem to not be interested in accepting a notion that perhaps no, Clasicos weren't nearly as key to these sackings and it was far more to do with:
a) In the case of Lopetegui -> Shit form of the team between mid-September and late-October 2018 + an unprecedented goalless streak effectively costing us the league in early autumn knowing we're toothless upfront and won't be able to steamroll teams with ease to get favourable position back.
b) In the case of Solari -> Not seeing what is a favourable CL tie (2:1 advantage from the away game) through on your home ground.
In support of the former, league in 2015 during Benitez tenure was much closer when it got to the Clasico. We have had 6W, 3D, 1L (21 points) in 10 matches leading up to the Clasico compared to your 9W, 2L (27 points). Meaning the Clasico was the case of 'lose and it's very difficult to even be in the conversation with MSN'.
Compare that situation with 18/19 -> Barcelona 5W, 3D, 1L (18 points) to RM's 4W, 2D, 4L (14 points) with a goalless streak. What do you think was the difference and why one was kept and one wasn't?
Then you go onto Solari and think of Clasicos. First we have the Copa Clasico which ends 3-0 after a great performance and the problems are recognised immediately by anybody who had watched the game. Same, to a lesser extent, in a decaffeineated league Clasico. Why do you think Solari wasn't sacked immediately, but kept for the CL tie? Hm? And do you honestly mean to tell me he'd get a sack if he had drawn 0-0 against Ajax? Or lost 0-1 but advanced to the next tie?
Equally as you loosely use 'in the wake of', I use 'little to do with'. In the wake of implies following and usually immediately after. Otherwise what's the point of using 'in the wake of' if you could have used the same reasoning 2, 3, 4 or 5 weeks after the loss?
P.S. - It's kinda cute how you log off immediately after posting and watch the thread as a 'guest' and 10-15 mins later, voila, a response. Patterns.
I don't. It's probably an invisible setting. Didn't even know it was on, probably since 2009.
Terrible game.
