But it is highly unusual that they have not performed for two managers with vastly different styles within the space of a few weeks. That suggests to me there is something wrong in the dynamic of the group.
If they won't play for Hill when he has barely got his feet under his desk, that reflects worse on the players than it does Hill in my view. You can't go on scapegoating managers forever.
Perhaps senior players held more sway under Dawes which is why they were prepared to play for their 'buddy' ?
The reality is that neither of us know or are ever likely to find out.
We've shown that we can dominate games by taking a grip of midfield (Cambridge) and even win them (Carlisle) under the two different managers with vastly different styles. Arguably we lost the Walsall game because we were out-fought in key areas across the park, but we didn't give up and kept battling. Haven't seen enough of the Exeter game, but the impression from posts on here and the brief highlights suggests we didn't seem to be trying at all.
If Dawes/Parkinson were less in control with the senior players being influential, which you moot as a possibility, then given results suggest that was working, if Mark was aware, arguably he should have stuck with that rather than gone with an experienced manager.
Once Adkins was out of the picture, if we were to go down the experienced manager route, then Hill seemed as good as any realistic option. Can't really tell from their forum, why he was so unloved at notlob. I don't think anyone's got the stomach for another change of manager now and we should have enough to keep out of relegation danger, but it's going to be quite a challenge getting a side playing as badly as we did yesterday promoted.