Why should he move to a club that's beneath him? If the top clubs want him he's right to go there...top teams don't manage themselves.
Guardiola vs. Mourinho
- Thread starter Sky1981
- Start date
Why should he move to a club that's beneath him? If the top clubs want him he's right to go there...top teams don't manage themselves.
Would Mourinho have won the CL titles with that Barcelona side?
Would Pep have done the same at the clubs Mourinho has managed?
Answer to the first question? No doubt Jose would have shifted off Ronaldinho and made the side more competitive. The side would have been less beautiful than anything Pep produced but it would still have been up there and he'd have won a CL more likely than not with that nucleus of players.
Answer to second question, no chance I don't think Pep has shown he could take on a Inter or Porto and take them to such a level of glory. He might prove me wrong on that front but I don't think his style of management/philosophy could have led these lesser teams to glory.
For me Mourinho is the better manager at this moment in time.I don't think Bayern would have looked as inept in these big CL encounters as they have done under Pep even taking injuries into account.
Would Pep have done the same at the clubs Mourinho has managed?
Answer to the first question? No doubt Jose would have shifted off Ronaldinho and made the side more competitive. The side would have been less beautiful than anything Pep produced but it would still have been up there and he'd have won a CL more likely than not with that nucleus of players.
Answer to second question, no chance I don't think Pep has shown he could take on a Inter or Porto and take them to such a level of glory. He might prove me wrong on that front but I don't think his style of management/philosophy could have led these lesser teams to glory.
For me Mourinho is the better manager at this moment in time.I don't think Bayern would have looked as inept in these big CL encounters as they have done under Pep even taking injuries into account.
Winning La Liga over Barca and Madrid -- a CL winning Madrid team no less -- over 38 games with an Atletico side that had not beaten Real Madrid in a single derby in over a decade is not compareable to winning a couple of knockout games against United, Lyon, Deportivo and Monaco? Where does Rehhagel rank?
History won't care about the luck of the draw, nor will it care whether a Scholes goal was ruled offside. And further its not as if Porto fluked their way to a European Cup since they just won another one a year before.
A certain Brentan said something similar to you.
And statistics does not back up your claim. Take a look at the recent CL winners:
2013/14 - Real Madrid (4-1 win over Atletico)
2012/13 - Bayern Munich (2-1 win over Dortmund)
2011/12 - Chelsea (penalty win over Bayern, parked a bus. A lot of the players in the team were signed by Mourinho anyway)
2010/11 - Barcelona (3-1 win over Man Utd)
2009/10 - Inter Milan (2-0 win over Bayern, Mourinho)
2008/09 - Barcelona (2-0 win over Man Utd, ugh)
2007/08 - Man Utd (penalty win over Chelsea, boring game but we were never defensive)
2006/07 - AC Milan (2-1 win over Liverpool, drab match, not sure how to rate Milan but they did blew us away with some Kaka magic, so I don't think they are that defensive)
2005/06 - Barcelona (2-1 win over Arsenal)
2004/05 - Liverpool (3-3 Milan, worst champion in a long time but were Liverpool defensive?)
2003/04 - Porto (3-0 win over Monaco, Mourinho)
So in the past 11 CL winners, only 3 teams were truly defensive and they were all Mourinho-related. So it really isn't as easy to win titles and trophies by playing defensive football.
Even if you do not want to consider solely on CL but on league titles, EPL titles were mostly won by the best attacking team (rated by goals scored).
2014/15 - Chelsea (2nd best offensive record, best defensive)
2013/14 - City (best offensive record, 2nd best defensive)
2012/13 - Man Utd (best offensive record, 5th for defensive)
2011/12 - Man Ciy (best offensive record, best defensive)
2010/11 - Man Utd (best offensive record, 3rd best defensive)
2009/10 - Chelsea (best offensive record, 2nd best defensive)
2008/09 - Man Utd (2nd best offensive record, best defensive)
2007/08 - Man Utd (best offensive record, best defensive)
2006/07 - Man Utd (best offensive record, 2nd best defensive)
2005/06 - Chelsea (best offensive record, best defensive)
So the team with the best offensive record won the league 8 out of 10 times, while the best defensive team only won 5 out of 10 (3 of them are when the team are the best in both anyway). It is a myth that it is easier to get result with defensive tactics.
He built on a Europa Cup the year before and it isn't his fault Porto play in a different league to the likes of Real.. whose to day he would't have won La Liga with that Porto side.. Barca were shite during those years and Madrid were slightly over the hill at that point.
Ofcourse history won't care and i never said Porto fluked it. They deserve it and it was a great achievement. But that's besides the point.
Mourinho hands down. Guardiola has only managed Barcelona and Bayern and while it does take skill to manage egos for the best teams the amount of talent that he's had at his disposal has been staggering. Mourinho won the CL with Porto, lost 1 home game while at Chelsea, and won 150 home games in a row with Porto, Chelsea, Inter, and Real (almost 10 years unbeaten at home)
Clubs aren't beneath him! But he shouldn't move to them as if he had a real challenge then probably he'd get found out. It would be a stupid move. But that still doesn't make him a great manager. He's yet to win a competition that neutral observers wouldn't have said he had the best squad of players for.
You only have to look at Rijkaards career in club management to show how it's perfectly possible for a very average manager to win La Liga and CL, whilst playing great football, but with the best squad of players in the world. You don't need to be a great manager to have achieved great things with the Barca side Pep had. Some fans make the assumption that a great team needs a great manager, but it simply isn't true. It doesn't mean Pep isn't a great manager, but that he's untested in conditions that can really tell us what his ability really is, thus he doesn't belong in the conversation.
The teams he beat were still pretty strong, they would have had to have been if they could beat the big teams. But the big teams not being at their best is a regular occurrence in these underdog stories in football. Last year Madrid and Barcelona were not at their best (they were 10-13 points off what they normally have been achieving in recent years) but nobody tries to take away from Simeone's achievement and rightly so. It was the same when Benitez won with Valencia (Madrid and Barca were not at their best) and the same when Klopp won two Bundesliga titles in a row (Bayern did not play near the highest level they were capable of). If you think that what Porto did was "a tad bit overrated" then you could say the same about a lot of those achievements too. If the big teams play at 100%, then there is nothing that the likes of Atletico, Porto, Valencia or Dortmund or similar clubs could do, no matter what Benitez, Klopp, Mourinho or Simeone do.
What Di Matteo did was a great achievement. He did very good work and managed his team very well that season. He has not had much success since then or prior to that so that is why I would not say that he is one of the top managers of the world (and he was not so comfortable when his team was among the favourites for the Premier League and the CL the following season). Sure Mourinho could not win it with Chelsea, unlike Di Matteo. But he already showed with Porto that he could win it with the underdog as well as winning with the favourite. Guardiola in comparison has only won with the favourites so far in his career. Being either the favourite or the underdog brings two different but difficult pressures. There are some who have done well when competing as the underdog but faltered when faced with the pressure of being the favourite and the team to beat (Rafa Benitez for example amongst others) and vice versa. Mourinho is one of the few managers that is well versed in succeeding with both the underdog and the favourite. There are very few managers that you can say that about with Ferguson being one of the few others. Why should a manager who has only won with the favourites in a competition be rated above a manager who has triumphed with both the favourites and the underdogs? Like I said, I expect Guardiola to someday win when competing as the underdog or at least on equal footing with his opponent(s), but so far he has not.
Precisely. Winning the La Liga outside of the top two without a major investment is much much tougher than Porto beating Lyon, Deportivo and Monaco. Even Simeone said La Liga was much tougher. Heck even Mourinho said that every team in the world can only hope to finish third in La Liga. What Simeone did last year in Europe (beating Barca and Chelsea to reach final) and Spain (winning the league) is the biggest achievement by any manager in modern football imo.
Wow, that's plainly wrong. You conflate very different things. It is one thing to be successful with that group of players (which, BTW, had a very unimpressive season before Pep took over) and it is quite another thing to turn this excellent squad into the greatest team ever (or up there with the very best). Pep's success with Barca is not exhausted by the tropheys he won with them but with the utterly impressive football they managed to paly under him. Mou and other managers would have won the CL and other tropheys with this squad as well, no doubt about that. But would they have created such a brilliant team? Probably not. In other words, while Pep could struggle to achieve something great with Porto and Inter, Mou would struggle to make Barca as impressive and great as Pep did.
What exactly was undeserved? That we had the harder run to the final than you? Or that despite us having played a FA Cup final only a few days ago while you could rest your whole team, you still only managed to score from a lucky free kick against a non existing midfield (Scholes and Keane were our whole central midfield who were both missing)?
I have rewatched our CL campaign and the final various times and yes you hit the post and bar, but apart from that we kept attacking and you lot had to clear the ball a lot for several corners. Maybe as a reward that's why our last 2 corners led to goals, which were btw legitimate goals with no help/mistake from a ref. so to say our win was rather undeserved is hilarious. Beckenbauer and Hitzfeld both said immediately after the final that our win wasn't undeserved.
And let's be honest: scoring a fluke goal early against a tired team with no midfield and then just giving up when that team finally scores a late equalizer should not really be awarded with a winning medal.
Btw, below are the stats for the final according to wiki, we had more possession (now even I am surprised, don't know how accurate this is as no idea how we managed more possession against your lot without our possession kings Keane and Scholes), but we also had more corners and more shots on target.
The only reason some consider our win lucky is because you hit the post/bar and our goals came late, that's it.
Manchester United Bayern Munich
Goals scored 2 1
Total shots 15 15
Shots on target 9 7
Ball possession 53% 47%
Corner kicks 12 7
Fouls committed 11 10
Offsides 6 8
Yellow cards 0 1
Red cards 0 0
As of now, Mourinho. I do not like his management style, but the results cannot be questioned.
Pep is more talented and had a higher peak, albeit much shorter (as of now). I don't count his Bayern stint as a success yet. Give it a few more years and we'll see.
Pep is more talented and had a higher peak, albeit much shorter (as of now). I don't count his Bayern stint as a success yet. Give it a few more years and we'll see.
He shouldn't! I just find some of the criticisms labelled at Pep very unfair and entertainingly confusing. If we use the same yardstick to measure every other manager then by the law of 'winning titles with inferior teams and less money by beating bigger teams' both Benitez and Simeone should be above Mourinho.
Thanks for the information mate. Much appreciated. One thing you need to consider when looking at those stats - the teams who ended up winning - were more or less theee best or most expensively assembled teams around.
Madrid, Barca, Bayern etc could afford to play expansive football because they assembled the very best attackers around. So yeah, I agree with the point you made which was well supported as well. I just think - especially for the underdog to win (like Mourinho did with Inter, Porto etc)....it's much easier to win it playing defensive football.
I was, in main, responding to Rob, who said something along the lines of "Pep could never do with inter or Porto what Jose did "
It seems that Mourinho has noticed this thread ,
Mourinho easily.
Guardiola is massively overrated.
Guardiola is massively overrated.
Totally disagree with that
Guardiola starting younger is a positive if anything. Not his fault Mourinho wasn't a top footballer.
And none of you actually know how he'd do at porto or inter. So, saying it with such conviction is bizarre.
I agree with you on that. The most consistent way to beat expensively assembled teams with a much weaker team (underdog) are by playing defensive.
Very true.
One might ask as well whether Guardiola would fail to win the CL with the great squads of Chelsea (05-07) and Madrid (11-13).
I agree with that. I made a post yesterday defending Guardiola against some of the criticism that he was receiving and against those claiming that he should have set his team up a different way. His team had injuries to key players which made things quite difficult.
Both have proven that they are capable of overcoming the odds and winning with unfancied teams but neither have really shown that they can do it when the pressure is on and they are expected to win. Two different pressures and plenty of managers have shown that they are only comfortable with one of them. Benitez has exceeded expectations in his career with Liverpool and Valencia, but he struggled with Inter and his Liverpool team in 09/10 imploded in the one year that something was actually expected from them (after a strong league campaign the previous season, they were amongst the favourites for the title for the first time in a while). His Liverpool team also went out in the last 16 stage in the CL the season after they won the competition (losing 3-0 on aggregate to Benfica). Simeone hasn't really had the chance to manage one of the European juggernauts or a team that has the minimum expectation of winning every season just yet (in the same way Guardiola hasn't had the chance to manage the underdogs or a team on equal footing to his competitors just yet) so for that I would not put him up there with Mourinho just yet (in that I do not think that Simeone is a better manager outright than Mourinho, despite the fact that I think he has been the most in-form manager or the manager that has been managing the resources at his disposal better than any other manager has been over the last few years). If Simeone were to win leagues or the CL as a favourite (or Guardiola the same with an underdog) then I would re-consider my evaluation of both of them and it would certainly make it more difficult for me (and plenty of others no less) to say who is the best manager of the three of them. It would then come down to other factors and the smallest details.
Impressive and great are subjective - they were both in my book, but its wrong to infer they wouldn't also be as great, albeit in a different way, had Mourinho managed them. The driving force was obviously Messi's ascent to being a once in a lifetime player alongside the core of Spain's Euro and WC winning squad. No manager could've wished for such a perfect storm during his 3-4 year stint. Pep of course did a fantastic job of nurturing what he already had, so credit where its due. Mourinho on the other hand doesn't need to prove himself after 8 league trophies and 3 Euro Cups in 12 years.
I think @Raul Madrid made the point here a while ago that while Mourinho has won the CL with underdogs, he has failed to win it with very good or great squads (at RM and Chelsea). So can he win it when everyone expects it and the pressure is on or can he only motivate his players to win the CL with "us against the world, noone thinks we can do it, let us poor minnows show those billionaires what can be achieved with our underdog parking the bus innovation!!!"
This is why SAF is the greatest ever!!!!! He won 2 European trophies as underdogs with Aberdeen and United, plus 2 when we were more or less favourites to win it (1999, 2008)
OK oppo fans, that's just a sidenote, you don't have to agree btw and are free to continue the Messi v Ron..., sorry I mean Pep v Mou debate ...
This is why SAF is the greatest ever!!!!! He won 2 European trophies as underdogs with Aberdeen and United, plus 2 when we were more or less favourites to win it (1999, 2008)
OK oppo fans, that's just a sidenote, you don't have to agree btw and are free to continue the Messi v Ron..., sorry I mean Pep v Mou debate ...What sort of daft argument is this ?
I also actually don't know how a mission to mars might go, but I'm willing to discuss it. Its what we do here.
Yeah, I'm not saying being a "pragmatist" like Mourinho (parking the bus when he must) is necessarily a negative. It brings him almost unrivaled success. But on a personal note, I prefer the romantic ideals of pep. Something's in football should be a bit more about just winning. I'd personally be unhappy if Mourinho was at United at parked the bus against the oppo. Even if it brought us trophies. But that's just a personal choice. It's in no way right or wrong.
True, although he has won leagues with Inter and Chelsea whilst being the favourite and the league title he won when he was in charge of Madrid came when he was the underdog up against one of the greatest teams of all time, while still facing the pressure of the favourite (as Madrid never see themselves as the underdogs due to their arrogance/pride/delusion or what have you and there is always massive expectations in regards to the team coming from the club itself, the fans and the media and that does not change no matter how good the opposition is).I think @Raul Madrid made the point here a while ago that while Mourinho has won the CL with underdogs, he has failed to win it with very good or great squads (at RM and Chelsea). So can he win it when everyone expects it and the pressure is on or can he only motivate his players to win the CL with "us against the world, noone thinks we can do it, let us poor minnows show those billionaires what can be achieved with our underdog parking the bus innovation!!!"
This is why SAF is the greatest ever!!!!! He won 2 European trophies as underdogs with Aberdeen and United, plus 2 when we were more or less favourites to win it (1999, 2008)
And that's all there is to it. For me Mourinho has proven more and has been around longer. You don't need to brush off and discredit Guardiola's Barca career to prove that. He did great work there and built a great team taking many big decisions that were seen as risky and plain stupidity at the time.
Agreed.
As for the bolded, I am not sure if this is targeted at me (probably not, but just to be sure) but I don't believe I have ever discredited him or belittled his work. Even when I made posts saying that I think that Mourinho is better, I always mentioned that the work he did at Barcelona was very good and that he is undoubtedly a world class manager and one of the very best managers in the world.
What a bombastic post.
Just looking at ages, Pep is 44, Mourinho is 52, and Ancelotti is 55. Pep has been in management a lot less then Mourinho and Ancelotti, and the latter should be compared to each other. Carlo is not 'old guard'.
lol not at you mate. Just what i have noticed in general.
The normal sort unlike the one you've been putting across yourself.
Achieving things at a younger age is a positive thing. Everyone wants to be more succcessful as early as they can be. So it's not relevant in the context you said it.
Not really. Speaking with authority on pure guesswork isn't exactly what we do here.
What on earth does Guardiola starting younger and Mourinho not having been a top footballer have remotely anything to do with any of this ?
I think this question should be asked when they're both retired.
You qualified the trophy count comparison by saying that Guardiola started younger. I have no idea why that should matter. Is it not a good thing that he started younger? It's as if you see it as some sort of undue advantage he has in this supposed "race to trophies".
He did start younger, but Mourinho not having been a top footballer has nothing to do anything. He was dabbling in management for a good part of the 90s before getting any top jobs.
At least a lot later than now I think.
My opinion other than thinking that it's too early is that at the moment:
1. Mourinho will accumulate loads of trophies and go the distance whereas Guardiola strikes me as someone who seeks perfection even more than number of trophies.
2. Mourinho is your man for a gritty organised and solid unit that will grind if necessary whereas Guardiola's teams will always play with more style, be easier on the eye and will always try to take charge.
They've both had favorable conditions but at the same time are terrific managers. Like I said, too early to say who is better.
How does it matter (who started what when) with respect to the comparison, though? If Mourinho's trophy count is affected by it, it's his issue.
And Pep getting a job as big as Barca so early obviously does partly have to do with him being one of their great players.