Of course reaching a stage in a cup is an objective for anybody. Theres money at stake, would be dumb not to for any club with any intention to grow or maintain position in league and get more resources to keep competitive level when stop being a career stepping stone for players. And he fails miserably there.
It's a standard assessment how well a manager does in a different format that tests and prioritises adaptability with a far more constrained time limit decreasing the margin of error. Matter of fact same place Xavi fails miserably in so far. Not something you value though so we can move past the point
Lol I just read you out the data in context of his actual impact assessment over time (something very important in the Sciences, but you wouldn't know since you're not in Sciences i guess).
He's improved absolutely marginally. Average move from 1.1 to 1.4 a goalscoring opportunity on a semi-arbitrary metric attests to no major success at the offensive front.
And I admitted he has improved them more significantly in defense. Not that it counts for anything, was one year of sample size.
About the first part: you purposefully omit to make the distinction between big and small/medium/wannabe-bigger club.
For Xavi it is absolutely an objective and he is rightfully criticized for that. For Potter, when he took Brighton over, it was never an objective. The objective is always where you are in the league. If, along the way, a good cup run or even a title happens, it's a plus.
About the second:
Unfortunately for you, I happen to have formal education in the sciences as well. So I can read graphs very well, and I can see the shit that you are trying to slide through, betting on the ignorance of a layman (when you do that).
Given that you seem to not have spent much time reading "xG trend over time" graphs, I can tell you that an increase of 0.5 xG over time is far from marginal. It's hugely significant.
I can show you many examples on this from top clubs if you are really and eagerly interested to learn about it
