The problem is that we all tend to use whatever evidence exists to support our personal view.
So last season, at this point, many were arguing that our start was false because we were playing well and the results would come. This season, the corresponding argument is opposite but some of the same people are espousing it. The performances have been poor but we've started with 'promotion' results so what's the problem?
If, like me, your glass is pretty much always half empty when it comes to City under NP, you can look at performances and/or results and draw quite different conclusions, equally reasonably (or unreasonably).
There is no right or wrong answer because nobody knows for sure whether we'd be better or worse with a different manager. It's all opinion. What gets me sometimes is the assertion that we should simply support because that's what our role is. Criticism is seen as inherently wrong or somehow a depiction of being a less legitimate City fan.
For example, in our last game at home, the team were partially applauded and partially booed off at half time. The first half performance was interpreted completely differently by many at the game. There is simply no consensus amongst fans right now. There are good reasons why NP is still in his job but also good reasons why he's one the favourites to be sacked.
Answering your question directly, I'm a results over performance person in all circumstances and I've never really understood anyone that isn't. But to expect consistency in results and performances with our current set up is likely to leave you disappointed.
