I'm not sure why there has to be such a divide and need to continue with a debate that really has no consequence going forward, we all have our opinions of the job that Warnock did, personally didn't see anything in his final 10 months that thought he was taking us up, but that's my opinion and I respect others who believe that he was the right man for the job.
I just don't get the need to become entrenched and speculate on what might have been, and whilst it is still early days, I think it's hard to argue that Wilder hasn't matched the expectations of what even Warnock's staunchest hoped he'd achieve.
Ultimately every manager is judged on results and all those who lose their jobs will have mitigation, justifiable or otherwise, however in this case I don't see much upside in agreeing to disagree where opinions differ.