Kane wasn't, that's why he was warming the bench at Championship clubs, Norwich and even at Spurs. Only after Poch took over he became better player.
Kane was a better player than Rashford naturally. Poch deserves a lot of credit but Kane is a phenomenal talent with an all round game which was ready to burst and Rashford didn't have that when Jose came. feck he doesn't even have it now.
If the point you're turning this into is another jibe against Jose by saying "look what Poch did with Kane" then it's just bizzare. You can bring Pep here and Rashford won't be Kanes level. Rashford isn't even Sterling's level pre City.
Managers can't do much than playing players in their best position? Then what exactly is the manager's role in player development? Do they develop naturally without much work from coaches/managers? If that's the case, how do you explain players improving so much under managers like Klopp, Pep?
When you have a 20 year old academy player who is extremely raw in his playing style there's little you can do outside of play him in games which best suits his skillset, get him experience and yes coach the player along the way. But he was 20. It would take ages for him to develop properly as a player and who knows if he ever would develop?
Klopped developed a more mature Salah and Mane, who had more experience under their belt and were more polished players than Rashford is. I see Rashford today and I can't see much difference in his general play to Jose. What does that tell you? That Jose and Ole have both done a shit job with Rashford? Or that Rashford is still very young and needs to develop before we see what he's really about? He's no Mbappe, we can't expect him to own teams on the regular at 22.
Jose came 2nd and then was 6th, Klopp came 2nd and now winning PL. That's the difference. He spent less than Jose, so even spending less money you have a manager who showed how to mount a league title, but we had manager who spent more than anyone bar City but didn't come close to challenging even once in 2.5 years. If that side looked 20 points worse than City then it shows how shit job Jose did when it comes to transfers as Klopp showed with less money how they are looking at least equal if not better than City.
Wasn't Jose supposed to be World class manager and all time great?
When Jose finished 2nd, hilariously the daft feck up that is Ed Woodward decided to side with the players like Pogba or martial or whoever else, and decided Jose isn't worth further investment. His funds were stopped and Klopp went on to be backed massively to charge for a title push.
feck knows where Jose would have taken us if he got his wishes on paper. But if he got us 81 points in season 2 and wanted funds to bridge that gap, I'd bet he'd have done a better job than finish 6th that season. Heck don't look at my words, just look at the fact that he does eventually mount a title challenge wherever he goes. Yeah he implodes too but this implosion was a massive part down to Ed and not actually giving him any leeway on funds, even when it's buying a centre back he ended up purchasing anyway under Ole.
I don't know how anyone can say manager was successful when they spend 2nd most in transfers and fails to challenge for league title in 2.5 years. Was he better than other managers we hired? Yes. Was he successful? No.
The team that finished 1st spent 100s of millions more than him. That's why.
Did Klopp get closer? Sure. He overperformed. That doesn't mean Jose was a failure. In my opinion Klopp took over a better Liverpool side than Mourinho inheriting his United side. Klopp came a season after Brendan had made a title challenge of his own, whereas Jose had to walk into no right back, no right wing, no proper centre backs, no midfield and no actual striker. I can't believe this is even a debate.
It's clear you hate mourinho to the bone, no context or reason will change you. Even if Jose is a success at Spurs and we get worse, you probably won't change your view that maybe Jose had a case here. So what's the point, really.