I think many of these pundits and ex-players are wildly missing the point.
The saying goes, if there is more than one explanation for an occurrence, the simplest one is usually correct.
Is it really likely that these players have purposefully gone out and shown less desire, drive, energy or whatever other adjective you care to use as part of some Machiavellian plot to overthrow a manager who significantly contributed to what is likely the highest achievement of their careers?
Or is it perhaps more likely that the players were responding to instruction and tactical changes from the manager to play a more contained game, and it was in fact their faithfulness to the man suddenly so revered that meant they didn't 'throw off the shackles', despite their own better judgement?
I'm sure most of you have seen the output of these fellas on social media, they're hardly in Alain de Botton territory in the mental stakes.
To suggest they were actively not trying very hard and were playing badly to oust the manager, well, it just isn't very likely.