Well, you aren't wrong, it's just that when I think back to that season, I certainly don't remember being impressed. Instead, it felt like one of LVg's years, where I felt that the football was slowly eating away at my soul.
Personally I think Solskajer teams play better but I don't think there's much difference in terms of points collected, I would need a goal and points per game to evaluate that properly.
I think what changes is the perception, and this changes views enormously.
Examples:
Mourinho was always being attacked by being crap with all the money that he invested, and in this people also included transfers before his era, etc.
But Solskajer inherited the squad and had transfer of his own naturally and there's no criticism at all on what he's achieving with a massive budget (he has a 100M€ midfielder and he can't do anything, brrr).
Other examples are the very hard achieved wins, such as being dominated and winning with a single shot on target or something. Both did it but Mourinho was still criticised because it was parking the bus and it was not the United way. Solskajer can walk away with it.
Another thing Mourinho was attacked all the time was that people were always wanting him to play some specific players, like Lingard. As everyone can clearly see Lingard is bad but still people were angry at Mourinho for not using the "youth" more and I was like "can you not see how bad Lingard is"? Then also Matic, that was a genius move to a Mourinho's fault deadwood but then magically again is very good.
With this I'm not saying Mourinho did everything right or that he couldn't do better, I'm just pointing out stuff that to me looks unfair on how you compare them (or fair if you look at their wages).
On the 2nd place imho that was an outstanding feat, your team was bad and you scrapped for it. And people attack him still because it was not exciting or because City ended 200 points above - you can't say with a straight face that City didn't have a massive squad advantage. The gap was a very normal thing.
