How much of a side's success is their manager, and how much the players? E.g.: should a manager like Brendan Rodgers get as much criticism for not achieving great success given the quality of players he managed?

I know the message you're trying to get across but you can't compare Mourinho to Rodgers in the way you're implying. Let me tell you why:

-Rodgers made shit up at Liverpool. Liverpool had a good squad, not as good as Chelsea's or City's but a good squad. One example is how he had players constantly playing out of position. Also worth noting is he didn't have a basis on whatever tactics he tried to pull on Liverpool. He never knew if they would work or not (which is part of a manager's job of course, to envision a new strategy for the team), but since they didn't work Liverpool got rid of him.

-Mourinho, on the other hand, has achieved numerous success with this squad, using the exact same vision. If the players suddenly underperform, it's the players being affected psychologically 90% of the time, which is what I think happened here (mostly due to the drift between Mourinho and 4 or 5 players on his team, causing tensions and a rift on the team).

Now, I'm not criticizing Mourinho or Rodgers, or praising either. Simply put, Rodgers had a vision for Liverpool and it didn't work so he left. Mourinho had a vision for Chelsea, it worked and brought wonders but it then suddenly stopped working due to some factor.

I honestly think Mourinho should have benched Costa, Matic, Hazard and Fabregas, play the youngsters, play someone who's willing to give it all for the Chelsea shirt. If you're not giving your all out there everytime you step your foot on the pitch, you shouldn't be playing.

In the end, Mourinho has been weak lately too due to his father being seriously ill. Chelsea's story has been a sad one, and Mourinho leaving is not a happy ending to either side.

/r/soccer Thread