I think this idea that he 'bottled it' at Leicester is a bit silly, to be honest.
Spend in previous 5 seasons (by Net)
Man United - £665.73m (Gross) - £479.58m (Net)
Man City - £760.42m (Gross) - £458.55m (Net)
Chelsea - £793.35m (Gross) - £240.32m (Net)
Liverpool - £417.82m (Gross) - £148.68m (Net)
Leicester - £385.96m (Gross) - £123m (Net)
Leicester: 207.36m (Gross) - £75.71m (Net) - Under Rodgers
Before this summer, Rodgers net spend was £18.47m. So, how exactly was he expected to compete for top four in the last two seasons with vastly lower resources?
There's two slightly separate points, I think.
One is whether Leicester on paper should have been expecting to finish in the top four based on spend. And in that sense you're absolutely correct, they would be overachieving in that regard.
The other is given that Leicester actually
were in poll position to secure top four two years in a row then should Rodgers have been able to secure it in at least one of those years based on the de facto reality of the teams involved at point?
Put it this way: by the logic of the above, any year we didn't win the title over the last several would be underperformance. But in real terms most people accepted that our team was in a place where that wasn't realistic despite our spend, so expectations were adjusted in line with where the team actually was.
The same also applies in reverse for Leicester. You can say that any year Leicester were involved in the top four race is overperformance, but in real terms most people accepted that a top four finish was very much realistic for Leicester over those two seasons given they spent more time in the top four than anyone else (567 days over both seasons). At which point it's fair to ask why they blew it both times from that excellent position.