What is it about those names that you think makes them a worse option than one of the worst options in the whole world of football managers?
Why can the only two choices be the best or the worst? Surely an incremental improvement (my nan, a 7 year old girl who doesn't like football, etc) is better than no improvement?
Because some lad in the middle is precisely, exactly, nailed-on what we should not be doing. It is the elephant trap.
Top: LvG, Ancelotti, FdB...fantastic, give him £100m, leave him at it, let him hire/fire who he wants, give him a giant 5 year "project" contract, maybe he mentors in our next coach, name on the back of shirts, call the new stadium after him, glory glory. Brilliant.
Middle: We have to poach him from somewhere, might work/might not/ho-hum, we have to emotionally commit to him, he has to have a 3 or 4 year contract, we have to give him money to spend, is another trauma/expense/embarrassment to sack, new players he brings in after he's sacked will be Felleini'd, minimum time wasted is 2 seasons, may not get on with Levy/Baldini over time, in every pore of his body reeks of compromise and 2nd best-ness and everyone knows it - "Is this guy a glorified caretaker, or do we really believe in him?"
Bottom: Sherwood aka "worst manager in the whole world of football managers"...he's already here, you don't have to give him money to spend, Baldini and Levy can continue youth recruitment without having to listen to the coach whining, easy to sack, Levy & Baldini have already worked with him & relationships seem good, low expectations, buys time until we can get a proper "Top" choice, just might work out and be really good, he's not keeping anyone else out of the job since by definition if he's appointed our "Top" guys aren't available, maximum time wasted is 1 season.
Appointing some guy in the middle isn't "incremental" just because it's in the middle. It is, in fact, committing to mediocrity on purpose, with your eyes open. It lacks wisdom and imagination.