Tito was the coach for only 4 months, I think. There were at least 2 games where his subs won away games that were complicated. Then Roura took over. It's not like Tito was clueless, he knew a lot about football.
Seemed pretty clueless to me in that Bayern game. I agree that we were a lot better before Roura took over, but even then there were a lot of games we were barely winning (Depor, Spartak, etc). And even then we were very meh in big games (only one we did well in was the first Super Cup game). The problems were there even when Tito was in charge and healthy, they just got worse after his relapse. And keep in mind that Tito did supposedly have an input even when Roura was in charge.
Tito wasn't much more of a success than Tata in my eyes. A lot of the complaints about Tata can be applied to Tito as well (i.e. we weren't playing tiki-taka under either of them (yes, we always had more possession under Tito, but possession =/= tiki-taka), neither of them really motivated the players, neither selected lineups based on form, etc). Tbh, I don't think they were that different from each other.
When Tito was in charge, I got the feeling we'd never win the CL under him. Especially after the Bayern games.