Taught me that we are no better off with or without trophy managers and change may be needed elsewhere ... but pedigree is pedigree and if the team is complete I'd rather have someone who knows how to win vs a naive upstart. And yes i actually think Mourinho would have done a number over city in the final.
I think the broader question for me (relatively new concept) is more manager fit
Let's assume you can break the PL down into categories
1. Elite clubs, legitimate challengers, majority of squad in place, for all intents unlimited resources (comparatively) - City/Chelsea/United soon to be Saudi Sportswashing Machine
2. Top 6, clearly above the rest of league, decent resources, budgets need to be managed, squad probably has holes or needs depth - Spurs, Arsenal
3. Best of the rest, established PL sides, potentially can momentarily match budgets of sides in group 2, ambitions for top 6/europe spot - Leicester, Everton (normally), West Ham, Palace, etc.
4. The rest, each year goal is survival, budget limited, talent of players likely limited/journeyman
I think what we are seeing is a good, even brilliant manager for one group doesn't necessarily translate to another group.
What I also question is the tactics/style
- With Jose & Conte, we have adopted for a primarily defensive manager, a concept that seems to work in group 1 and also in group 4 (and we can discuss why)
- History (recent) suggest it won't work with us
Our "successful" managers - BMJ, Harry, Poch
Our "unsuccessful" managers - Ramos, AVB, Jose
Hence I have concerns re Tuchel