I don't want to defend Mourinho, who imho went mad during his time at Real, but his over the top "special one" narrative does serve a purpose: the media mostly focuses on him instead of the players - so you can say he does protect them by doing so. If he's ultimately only pandering his enormous ego or not doesn't really matter in that regard.
But as a manager (like players too) you can ultimately only fail at some point. There are incredible little examples where a manger and a club parted in a fine and respectful way. Ranieri for example reached the ultimate top last season - impossible to top or even remotely to repeat (say: staying in the top5). As unfair as it sounds: as soon as he held the title in his hands and didn't step down his clock was ticking already.
And each approach (be it gentle, straight up analytical, brute force or whatever) does have an inherent deadline - so as unfair as it seems, it looks like Ranieri didn't reach the players this season like the last one. You can blame that entirely on the players, but playing the devils advocate here: you can also blame it on Ranieri who couldn't or wouldn't adapt. And it'll always be the manager to take the hat first since you just cannot fire and hire that many players at once.
But I only remotely follow English fooball nowadays so take those specific examples definitely with a grain of salt.
I agree with you
twietee, though I would also argue that what irks me goes beyond the behavior or fortunes of Ranieri vs Mourinho.
It really boils down to the fact that Mourinho is in some ways a perfect modern manager - short-termist, results-oriented, able to manipulate the media and the brainless masses who never read deeper than headlines or tickers. The way he accomplishes these things always produces destruction in the long term - because as far as I can tell he is an appalling human being - but that is not something that owners, boards, the football associations, TV people and the majority of fans are (collectively) interested in. They want to make money NOW, or win something NOW, or have a narrative NOW, and Mourinho offers that.
Some ex-players speak of him with almost religious reverence - but those players (like Lampard & Drogba) also happen to be world-class talents who fit with his player model and never let him down on the pitch. It's easy to maintain a good relationship when you do what you're told and deliver on it unquestioningly for years. Ask Hazard or Casillas what Mou is like, on the other hand...
Maybe Ranieri did lose the dressing room. Maybe his tactics were becoming a bit of a muddle. Maybe they were headed for relegation under him. But he also won them a league title, something no Leicester manager will do again in my lifetime - and you can take that to the bank (barring, of course, the expenditure by their ownership of Man City levels of cash). No matter
what they do, it's all downhill from here for Leicester. To suggest anything else would be delusional. So the best they can hope for by firing him is a few more seasons of trophyless toil in the premier league, the extra income from which will be piddled away speculatively on third-tier playing talent and siphoned off by the owners. The fans won't see a dime of it - in fact they'll probably be charged more for the privilege of watching the post-Ranieri decline. Then it's back to the Championship (or below) anyway.
The takeaway from this is that, in football management, no amount of success will buy you security at a club - except to the extent that it helps you pick up your next job after being fired. Likewise, long-termism is always frowned upon by ownership, FAs, the public, and especially TV people whenever it rears its reasonable head. Until, that is, clubs face a winding-up.
I personally default to 4-(1-2-1)-2 with my youth teams for what seems like the same reasons as Bruce Arena does.
