But my question is what makes you think that when things go well it's because ETH is doing well to get the best out of certain players and when things don't go well it's because the players are at fault. Would you accept the idea that ETH has nothing to do with the good things if he has nothing to do with the bad ones or to be totally fair and honest that it's actually a mixture of both?
Maybe some players aren't good enough, maybe some leaders shouldn't be leaders but in both cases the manager should shoulder most of the attention because as others have mentioned he brought a large number of players and he is the main leader in this Football club, a good manager is supposed to inspire good leadership or take most of the leadership responsiblities, and the latter point is extremely important because unless you only bring veteran key players that totally fit your culture and happen to be leaders, you will have to help young players to develop and apply their leadership, if your manager isn't good at it then you are sabotaging your young players' development and your team as a whole.
In the last months I have largely made critical comments about ETH, I have also the tendency to responsd to (overly)positive comments and it's not because I hate ETH, it's not because I want him out or any particularly negative reason. I have been critical of him because his failures are fundamental, you can't actually brush them under the carpet, there are two things that any club should require from their manager, the ability to lead people (staff and players) and the ability to develop technically/tactically/mentally people (staff and players). And ETH is failing at both, we all agree on the tactical/technical side of things but his supporters(for lack of better words) systemtically expose the leadership failures, the supposed poor culture, they use it to target players when they are actually exposing the manager, the leader, the head honcho.