I'm sorry, you said nobody can teach these players to play possession football. I pointed out that they probably can. It's more of the usual bollocks from you in moving the goal posts all over to try to vindicate this manager.
Vincent Kompany has Burnley playing possession based football, they're just not very good because their players aren't very good at this level. They lost 2-0 at the weekend against a better team, yet had 75% of the possession. You're just buying into this idea that we have 30+ players who can't play possession football, again to vindicate the manager. Onana, Varane, Martinez, Eriksen, Dalot, Casemiro, Amrabat, Antony, Mount, Shaw, Mainoo, possibly Hojlund and Garnacho, probably Amad - all of these players have either played possession based football elsewhere (some to a very high level) or are capable of it. If you disagree with any of them then explain why you don't think they could, yet worse players in the league can.
I'm not suggesting throwing any random manager at the job, I've suggested two managers that have shown they can get teams playing possession football, and/or who like to deploy a pressing game. In fact I'd say they are closer to Nagelsmann than ETH has been for us. In my opinion Nagelsmann values possession and control much more than ETH. He also plays a much higher defensive line with a more aggressive press. Lopetegui ticks both of these boxes. Nagelsmann in the past has also adopted a 3/5 at the back system which is fluid, as did Graham Potter at Brighton. Again, not something ETH is even using here. So how can you claim the manager is having the foundations laid by the guy doing none of this, and be against caretaker managers who would offer some or all of this? Again, like Nagelsmann, these managers are also very flexible and fluid in the formations they adopt during a game and across a whole season. Something that, again, Ten Hag is not. Amazing foundations this guy is laying.
Pep Guardiola himself has talked about how much of a fan of Potter he was. He enjoyed the principles of his football, calling him the 'best English manager' and said that as a player he would have loved to have played in his system. He failed at Chelsea in a bizarre set of circumstances, whereby the UK government had practically seized control of the club and forced it's sale. They were then took over by a consortium headed up by a guy from American Baseball of all things, who spent a ridiculous amount of money on a number of players, many of which hadn't even established themselves at their current club let alone the top level of football. I think that is a pretty extenuating circumstance, and this is now proven given that they have since spent a further £250m and have a capable manager, yet still aren't any better. You say he failed in his one chance at a big club, and then recommend Marco Rose who lasted a massive one season at a well run Dortumund? Ok then pal. The same Rose that finished 3rd in a weak CL group with Dortmund, then got pumped by Rangers in the Europa League and knocked out of the German Cup by St Pauli?
You know what though, if push came to shove then I'd give Rose a shot, though he would be far away from any of my top choices and rightly so. But can you see how easy it is to just sit here and pick apart any manager?