I still don't quite get the love in for Pochettino and that he's somehow used as a yardstick to (beat?) Ole's record so far.
These are Spurs' last 9 seasons point totals (oldest first). If you didn't know, you'd be hard pushed to say where AVB/Sherwood et al left and Pochettino began:
70, 62, 69, 72, 69, 64, 70, 86!, 77 - he took over the season they managed 64 points. Spurs average points in the 4 seasons prior to his appointment was 68, after, 74. He inherited Kane (who back from loan would go on to be top scorer) and Eriksen (second top scorer). To be fair he brought in Dier (summer) and Alli (Jan). The rest of his purchases though that first summer were pretty shite with hindsight.
Looking at the whole, isn't it fairer to say that Spurs 'success' with regard to league position has come because of failures of the teams around them as opposed to some managerial magic wand? Combined with our shite since Fergie retired, the traditional yo-yo form of Abramovich's Chelsea reign, Wenger gradually getting worse / retiring, the red-hot form of Kane etc the stars have certainly aligned for Pochettino. Has he really improved them that much at all? Is 6 points a season average enough of an improvement? If he hits around 87 points this season (which they're on target for), it would bring his average gains to 8 points over Spurs' previous level. It could be argued that they're being a bit flattered at the moment too, since they haven't drawn at all this season. They've lost the joint most out of the top 6 clubs.
But of course, he's clearly not a bad manager, yet even his Southampton season wasn't all that special. That also coincided with several players coming through at the same time - many of which were snapped up at season's end by the traditional bigger clubs, including two of them to us in Shaw and Schneiderlin. At the time it was thought that these players, our two, the load Liverpool bought, etc, were good enough for the bigger clubs, yet he managed only 8th, 8 points off our poor return in 7th. The following seasons for Southampton were marked by continually selling their star players which has ultimately led to a massive downturn in results. Do we think had Pochettino stayed there, he would have ridden out the storm despite player losses? I'm not so sure.
Back to his time with Spurs, even in the season when everyone else lost their collective shit and Leicester won the league, he could only manage third. They had the league's top scorer that year in Kane, finished with the highest goal difference, the fewest goals conceded, but fluffed the race finishing 11 points off the pace in a three-horse race.
In the 86 point season (his third with Spurs), which was Pep's first at City, Klopp's second at Liverpool, Jose's first with us and Conte's first at Chelsea, he was the most experienced manager towards the top of league outside of Wenger. He again had the league's best striker in Kane. Yet still when all around him was falling apart, Conte rocks up and finishes 7 points clear. He still couldn't get them over the line. Thing is, if you have a striker that's averaging almost a goal per game then you're going to be there or thereabouts come the end of the season - see Leicester and Vardy. His teams lack discipline when under pressure, which I think is partly where the bottling accusations stem from. In the Leicester season, you could pretty much set your watch by Spurs, that if on 70 minutes they were losing / not winning, tempers would fray.
Overall, his consistency, points wise, seems to rely on a well-coached defence (could he polish ours, I don't know), and having one of the best strikers in the league combined with the failure of clubs around him. I'm just not sure he's all that, or if, at this cycle of the Premier League, he's just the best of a bad bunch behind Klopp and Pep.