But you're saying they're generally right when they're not.
PL top two are as per bookies' predictions.
Championship top 3 are as per bookies' predictions.
League one predicted top 4 (Sunderland, Ipswich, Portsmouth and Rotherham -
https://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/sky-bet-efl-201920-season-guide/169389) are all in the top 7
League two I have no idea what was predicted and would suggest (as the trend above shows) these things get less accurate as you go down the leagues and have less expert coverage.
Are they universally right? No.
Are they "generally" (ie, in most cases) right? Yes, irrefutably.
It was your insistence that somehow Parker has spoiled a team that was definitely going to finish 2nd (and to this point they're 3rd, hardly a punishable offence).
Please stop accusing me of using words like "guaranteed" and "definitely". I appreciate it can be tempting when it feels like you're losing an argument to pretend the other person said something that makes it easier for you to demonstrate they're wrong, but in the end it just undermines your own argument.
To repeat, I treat bookies' pre-season odds as expert opinion which is generally correct (and where they're not, that's generally indicative of poor management).
I suggest you also scroll up the thread and note that I only said we should (in my opinion, which last time I checked I was entitled to) sack Parker if we get less than 80pts. That would probably mean finishing about a 5th or 6th. If we're in 3rd or 4th, whilst that would be disappointing against pre-season expectations, I'd keep Parker.
That's also a more generous approach than West Brom took with Moore last year.