The issue with anti-Ole arguments is that they just contradict each other.
For example, one of the arguments is that he left behind a shit squad -> But then there is an argument that he got 2nd and 3rd due to individual brilliance
One one side there's this argument that he left us soft, mentally weak -> On other side, we were 2nd half FC
On one side we got 2nd because all sides had issues -> On other side, we were with a manager who has been the worst manager to ever manage in PL, and not good enough for League 2 as well
One one side we say that Ole inherited a squad that finished 2nd 6 months earlier -> On other side, we say Ole left behind a squad that was 7th or 8th in PL
I've always defended Ole, and always will. But I'll acknowledge that his time can't be called a success as we didnt lift PL/CL. For cups, I dont think its the best parameter to classify success, as a lot depends on draw luck as well.
If someone said that there will be a manager who'll have a team with terrible attitude, who've been made complacent by the manager, backroom staff that has been employed on the basis of whether they are friends with Ole or not (Remember Nepotism FC"?), the worst owners in the league but guide the team to 2nd and 3rd place finishes with good runs in cup competitions, I'll hire that manager in an instant.