I disagree with that. There was a system under Conte. The problem with Conte wasn't the system itself, it was having the players with the skill AND experience to make it work. And the fact that the football was incredibly dull, of course. Of course, you could argue that it's the same with Postecoglou (who lost arguably the best striker in the world); the difference being that Conte had us fighting for a CL place when we're at the bottom of the pile now.
As for Mourinho, I think that's a tad unfair: he tried to adapt to the players he had at his disposal (he built an unbalanced 4-2-3-1 that gave Aurier a lot of space and freedom down the right, something quite different from his normal set-up). As for Espirito Santo, he really can't be judged one way or another.
You can't eat your cake and have it. If you get a 'system' manager (Conte or Postecoglou), then creativity becomes a low priority - the system is suppose to create chances, not the players. If the work had been done correctly, you should at least be able to see a shape, an intention, something... that was a horrible little game but it doesn't really matter at this point. Only thing that did was avoiding injuries and, for once, we didn't lose.
