I think Alexander can be a bit overrated when contrasted with someone like Hannibal, in terms of what he had to work with, or Napoleon in terms of scale...but to say he's an incompetent son of fortune is stretching iconoclasm to the point of absurdity imo.
Surely the correct comparison is between what happened at their deaths.
Philip dies - Alexander carried on and things went much as they would had Philip lived - maybe better.
Alexander dies - everything goes to H*** in a handcart.
Philip's officers were undoubtedly a great asset to Alexander. He would have achieved for less w/o having Philip's work to build on - but how did things go when those officers had to manage without him?