Your point was that there is no point replacing a manager with someone with a lesser CV. I accept that in the current landscape, there are few available managers who, on paper, have more to offer than Ten Hag.
My point was that there is a numerous examples of managers, with long and successful resumes that have been replaced by far less experiences managers who have gone on to do far better.
That's a bit of a misrepresentation of my point, you're conflating "CV" with "experience", and suggesting that's the only thing that I deem important.
That isn't what I'm saying - managerial experience and achievements is definitely important, as the best predictor of future performance is past performance, but there are other traits and experiences that can suggest or predict for the skills we need, such as how likely a manager is to command the respect of the players, or how accustomed to, and knowledgable about, the system we want to play they are. In the cases of Zidane, Xavi, and Guardiola, we're talking about some of the most legendary players the clubs had ever had, so the respect requirement was a given, and the same goes for the system/football knowledge, given we're talking about some of the most intelligent footballers (at least with regards to football) in history.
We tried that with Ole really, and he ticked the above boxes really, the players loved him (until Ronaldo at least), and he built a very good counter attacking team. The issues came when we wanted to move to a more proactive style of football, that's when the wheels really fell off.
Anyway I think we've gotten quite far away from the original discussion, where we seem to be in violent agreement that managerial appointments will mean very little until we sort out the wider sporting structure; once we commit to a club style, put together a data driven analytics and recruitment department, and do some decent succession planning, then at least we aren't setting our managers up to fail from the start.