Team made shots, ergo manager good. He set up a team that got over 20 shots on target over two games, yes. And no, he can't literally throw the ball in the net for them, but there are other aspects that people just flat out ignore.
What happened after the initial 15 minutes of the second half last night, after that flurry of chances? Absolutely feck all. We barely created any opportunities after that and lost control of the game to Sevilla who brought on fresh players, which ended up winning them the game. Alright, so it's 1-1 at that point, fair enough. But what happened after we conceded? Did the players react in a good way? Did they go on the offensive and create new opportunities to equalise? No they didn't, they didn't create anything at all, so why did it take Ole a further ten minutes (until there were three minutes remaining of the 90 minutes) to make any sort of substitution to try and change things? It clearly wasn't happening for the ones on the pitch, and everyone could see that it wasn't happening for them after 65 minutes. So why wait 20 minutes to make a sub, with a goal for the opposition in there as well?
If everyone can see that it's not happening for the ones on the pitch, why wouldn't you change things up? Especially against a team that's brought on fresh legs already? Why would you persist with the same team that has had poor luck with their finishing? Why would you repeatedly smash your head against a brick wall and not bother to even try to change the approach?
I'm not expecting any sort of answer here, because if you're trying to bring any sort of nuance to the discussion beyond "team lost, Ole shit", "team won, Ole great" or "team lost, Ole great, players shit", but you can at least consider if there's more nuance to it than "Ole plays players, players shoot and miss, Ole not to blame"