How does Guardiola the manager compare to Johan Cruyff?

horsechoker

The Caf's Ezza.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
60,364
Location
The stable
Guardiola is without doubt the most influential manager of the past 2 decades, he's won a load of trophies and he's dispelled his philosophy to other managers with great success.

If we're being generous we can say that Arteta, Kompany, Xavi and ten Hag have graduated from his managerial school, All of whom have found success or very nearly found it.

I don't think there's another contemporary manager who can claim the same success in influencing other managers.

How does this compare to the generation of managers that Cruyff influenced and the way he changed the game?
 
Ten Hag has little to do with Guardiola.
 
JPRouve said:
Ten Hag has little to do with Guardiola.
Click to expand...
ETH went to manage Bayern Munich's second team in order to work closely with Guardiola.

He left Go Ahead eagles who he got promoted to manage at a lower level for the opportunity to work in proximity with Guardiola.

'I learnt a lot from Guardiola,' Ten Hag reflected in 2019 when Ajax manager. 'His philosophy is sensational, what he did in Barcelona, Bayern and now with Manchester City, that attacking and attractive style sees him win a lot'
 
Quick trophy count for his protégés, I might have missed something:
Arteta - one FA Cup
Kompany - one promotion
Xavi - one Supercopa (league title soon)
Ten Hag - Carabao cup

if we don't include farmers leagues accolades, there's not too much silverware won by his graduates so far. Xavi about to win LaLiga is the only one with some significant success to his name. Thread a few years too early :lol:
 
horsechoker said:
ETH went to manage Bayern Munich's second team in order to work closely with Guardiola.

He left Go Ahead eagles who he got promoted to manage at a lower level for the opportunity to work in proximity with Guardiola.
Click to expand...

ETH's tactical approaches have little to do with Guardiola's and he was a good enough manager before meeting Guardiola. Would you make the point that Guardiola comes from Rijkaard managerial school?
 
JPRouve said:
ETH's tactical approaches have little to do with Guardiola's and he was a good enough manager before meeting Guardiola. Would you make the point that Guardiola comes from Rijkaard managerial school?
Click to expand...

Rijkaard is so underrated as a manager.

Guardiola has been very, very lucky to coach the squads he’s been gifted. He basically has ALWAYS had a massive advantage in squad to who he’s competing with and has only ever won that way. He’s never, ever won anything against a better squad…

I think Klopp is better than him all things equal.
 
JPRouve said:
ETH's tactical approaches have little to do with Guardiola's and he was a good enough manager before meeting Guardiola. Would you make the point that Guardiola comes from Rijkaard managerial school?
Click to expand...
I would say it’s normal for managers to learn off each other but that doesn’t necessarily make them clones or influenced. Eddie Howe went around the block studying at different clubs after he was sacked and a few others have done the same. The thing that usually comes from it is backroom organization and player preparation more than tactics.
 
Pep no doubt influenced by Cruyff but I think it's important to recognise one of their biggest differences which is the level of freedom both managers give to their players. Cruyff, like Rinus Michels, both still believed in allowing a high degree of individualism within their teams. Van Gaal was the complete opposite. He took the same ideals as Cruyff and Michels but was much more focused on the collective, everyone adhering a strict set of instructions with not much room for freedom, a bit like playing football from a manual. Pep is an interesting one. At the start of his career I'd say he'd fall in between Cruyff/Michels and LvG. System driven but allowing some freedom in the final third. However, nowadays I'd say Pep has become very system driven, to the point where there's not much room for freedom in his team. Not as extreme as LvG, but closer to his side of the spectrum. I think this is why we've seen players with an abundance of flair join City and have it taken out of them to become more cerebral (i.e. Mahrez and Grealish).
 
telstar96 said:
Pep no doubt influenced by Cruyff but I think it's important to recognise one of their biggest differences which is the level of freedom both managers give to their players. Cruyff, like Rinus Michels, both still believed in allowing a high degree of individualism within their teams. Van Gaal was the complete opposite. He took the same ideals as Cruyff and Michels but was much more focused on the collective, everyone adhering a strict set of instructions with not much room for freedom, a bit like playing football from a manual. Pep is an interesting one. At the start of his career I'd say he'd fall in between Cruyff/Michels and LvG. System driven but allowing some freedom in the final third. However, nowadays I'd say Pep has become very system driven, to the point where there's not much room for freedom in his team. Not as extreme as LvG, but closer to his side of the spectrum. I think this is why we've seen players with an abundance of flair join City and have it taken out of them to become more cerebral (i.e. Mahrez and Grealish).
Click to expand...
Pep Pot.
 
SirReginald said:
I would say it’s normal for managers to learn off each other but that doesn’t necessarily make them clones or influenced. Eddie Howe went around the block studying at different clubs after he was sacked and a few others have done the same. The thing that usually comes from it is backroom organization and player preparation more than tactics.
Click to expand...

I agree with that but it applies to pretty much all managers and they all have influences from the managers they studied or met. It doesn't make the vast majority of them part of a school and in this case ETH isn't part of anything resembling a Guardiola school.

In the case of the OP only Kompany could make sense because Arteta, Xavi and Guardiola all come from the same academy while ETH is very different from the others, he is closer to the german "school".
 
Guardiola is the reason Cruyff is even considered influential as a manager outside of Barcelona, so...

And, uh, yeah, they're not even really comparable as managers. One was great, the other is one of the greatest ever. Like comparing, say Careca with Ronaldo
 
Rhyme Animal said:
Rijkaard is so underrated as a manager.

Guardiola has been very, very lucky to coach the squads he’s been gifted. He basically has ALWAYS had a massive advantage in squad to who he’s competing with and has only ever won that way. He’s never, ever won anything against a better squad…

I think Klopp is better than him all things equal.
Click to expand...

The way Pep's teams dominate their domestic competitions is a thing only his teams can manage. City weren't that ridiculously dominant force when he managed them. Barcelona too.

He manages great teams sure, but he elevates them to a level no other manager in the world is capable of even dreaming to reach. He might not be perfect to rebuild teams going down hill, but he's the perfect manager to help your teach reach the next level.
 
el3mel said:
The way Pep's teams dominate their domestic competitions is a thing only his teams can manage. City weren't that ridiculously dominant force when he managed them. Barcelona too.

He manages great teams sure, but he elevates them to a level no other manager in the world is capable of even dreaming to reach. He might not be perfect to rebuild teams going down hill, but he's the perfect manager to help your teach reach the next level.
Click to expand...

I disagree respectfully.

His Barca team was ridiculous and had the greatest player of all time at his absolute peak. He didn’t achieve anything abnormal there as a coach, it was the players. See Spain’s domination also.

His Bayern team again was in a complete one horse race league yet he still managed to fail to win the CL - again he did nothing abnormal there.

His City side are literally assembled via financial cheating and have over 100 charges hanging over them which should see them lose their titles.

They essentially have the best 2 teams in the league yet needed Arsenal to bottle it in order to even win the PL.

He’s never won ANYTHING on a level playing field.

Comparing him to truly great managers who’ve actually won things against the odds or even just competed fairly is unfair on them and short sighted / recency bias.

To compare him to the greats is an insult to them.

That’s my opinion and it’s based on a lot of years watching great coaches. I understand many people disagree but that’s just how I see it with him.

As I said what Klopp did at Liverpool - won a CL and a PL from a financially doped side is a greater achievement than anything City’ve done.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
I disagree respectfully.

His Barca team was ridiculous and had the greatest player of all time at his absolute peak. He didn’t achieve anything abnormal there as a coach, it was the players. See Spain’s domination also.

His Bayern team again was in a complete one horse race league yet he still managed to fail to win the CL - again he did nothing abnormal there.

His City side are literally assembled via financial cheating and have over 100 charges hanging over them which should see them lose their titles.

They essentially have the best 2 teams in the league yet needed Arsenal to bottle it in order to even win the PL.

He’s never won ANYTHING on a level playing field.

Comparing him to truly great managers who’ve actually won things against the odds or even just competed fairly is unfair on them and short sighted / recency bias.

To compare to the greats is an insult to them.

That’s my opinion and it’s based on a lot of years watching great coaches. I understand many people disagree but that’s just how I see it with him.

As I said what Klopp did at Liverpool - won a CL and a PL from a financially doped side is a greater achievement than anything City’ve done.
Click to expand...

Bayern is the only team he managed that was already a dominant force before he got them.

The Barcelona team he inherited wasn't really a dominant force in Spain when he got the job, and they were just coming from an awful season as well. He also didn't just inherit the team and used it as it's. He changed a lot of things regarding the team dynamics and tactical set up, most notably in the midfield where he shifted the likes of Deco and Toure out to give a more central role to Xavi and Ineista. Messi also improved massively thanks to Guardiola, he wasn't the best player in the world before Guardiola, and he's the one who put him as a false nine which made most of his abilities explode. He won 6 trophies in his first season, coming from the back of a trophyless season the previous year. How is that normal ?

If it was the players only, why the only manager after him to manage to win a treble was Enrique ? Barcelona had a lot of managerial failures post Guardiola and bar Enrique no one has ever managed to achieve quarter of what he achieved in his 4 years there, despite having the same set of players.

And Spain domination was thanks to Guardiola's Barca domination. Just a normal follow up.

We can talk about City financials as much as we want, but the reality is this level of domination over domestic trophies in England is unprecedented and City spent a lot of money on the team even before Pep came and they still never looked as dominant as they're now under him.

Pep's style of play is very expensive, and requires a lot of quality and many players able to implement his ideas and training methods, that's very much true, but if you have a very good team and wants it to reach the next level, to start dominating everything, Pep is the perfect manager for this. His style of play is unmatched when implemented right and he unlocks the full potential of his players to reach their peak. He's the ultimate winner.

Sure he's not suited for teams in a rebuilding process or ones who can't afford his requirements, but Guardiola isn't really in need of this. He doesn't have to prove himself by managing a team in free fall. He has already built his name and everyone knows which teams he's perfect for and which job he can do and to what level of success.

Klopp is a great manager but he's a different category from Guardiola and suits different teams than him. I see no issue in this.
 
I think it's not easy to compare 90s and earlier managers with elite ones from the past 10-15 years. The amount of support and data available that allows the last generation of managers to refine their tactics on and off the ball is just on a completely different level than it was back then.
 
Fantastic manager at Barcelona.

Good at Bayern.

Very good at City but will forever be tainted by their financial doping and below Klopp in terms of achievement for me, even if it doesn't make sense from the trophy cabinet stats.

Overall very good but one I particular do not care for.
 
el3mel said:
Bayern is the only team he managed that was already a dominant force before he got them.

The Barcelona team he inherited wasn't really a dominant force in Spain when he got the job, and they were just coming from an awful season as well. He also didn't just inherit the team and used it as it's. He changed a lot of things regarding the team dynamics and tactical set up, most notably in the midfield where he shifted the likes of Deco and Toure out to give a more central role to Xavi and Ineista. Messi also improved massively thanks to Guardiola, he wasn't the best player in the world before Guardiola, and he's the one who put him as a false nine which made most of his abilities explode. He won 6 trophies in his first season, coming from the back of a trophyless season the previous year. How is that normal ?

If it was the players only, why the only manager after him to manage to win a treble was Enrique ? Barcelona had a lot of managerial failures post Guardiola and bar Enrique no one has ever managed to achieve quarter of what he achieved in his 4 years there, despite having the same set of players.

And Spain domination was thanks to Guardiola's Barca domination. Just a normal follow up.

We can talk about City financials as much as we want, but the reality is this level of domination over domestic trophies in England is unprecedented and City spent a lot of money on the team even before Pep came and they still never looked as dominant as they're now under him.

Pep's style of play is very expensive, and requires a lot of quality and many players able to implement his ideas and training methods, that's very much true, but if you have a very good team and wants it to reach the next level, to start dominating everything, Pep is the perfect manager for this. His style of play is unmatched when implemented right and he unlocks the full potential of his players to reach their peak. He's the ultimate winner.

Sure he's not suited for teams in a rebuilding process or ones who can't afford his requirements, but Guardiola isn't really in need of this. He doesn't have to prove himself by managing a team in free fall. He has already built his name and everyone knows which teams he's perfect for and which job he can do and to what level of success.

Klopp is a great manager but he's a different category from Guardiola and suits different teams than him. I see no issue in this.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
Demyanenko_square_jaw said:
I think it's not easy to compare 90s and earlier managers with elite ones from the past 10-15 years. The amount of support and data available that allows the last generation of managers to refine their tactics on and off the ball is just on a completely different level than it was back then.
Click to expand...

Super important point to consider. Pep is clearly on another level to other managers from the past, but it's not a fair comparison for the reasons above.
 
el3mel said:
Bayern is the only team he managed that was already a dominant force before he got them.

The Barcelona team he inherited wasn't really a dominant force in Spain when he got the job, and they were just coming from an awful season as well. He also didn't just inherit the team and used it as it's. He changed a lot of things regarding the team dynamics and tactical set up, most notably in the midfield where he shifted the likes of Deco and Toure out to give a more central role to Xavi and Ineista. Messi also improved massively thanks to Guardiola, he wasn't the best player in the world before Guardiola, and he's the one who put him as a false nine which made most of his abilities explode. He won 6 trophies in his first season, coming from the back of a trophyless season the previous year. How is that normal ?

If it was the players only, why the only manager after him to manage to win a treble was Enrique ? Barcelona had a lot of managerial failures post Guardiola and bar Enrique no one has ever managed to achieve quarter of what he achieved in his 4 years there, despite having the same set of players.

And Spain domination was thanks to Guardiola's Barca domination. Just a normal follow up.

We can talk about City financials as much as we want, but the reality is this level of domination over domestic trophies in England is unprecedented and City spent a lot of money on the team even before Pep came and they still never looked as dominant as they're now under him.

Pep's style of play is very expensive, and requires a lot of quality and many players able to implement his ideas and training methods, that's very much true, but if you have a very good team and wants it to reach the next level, to start dominating everything, Pep is the perfect manager for this. His style of play is unmatched when implemented right and he unlocks the full potential of his players to reach their peak. He's the ultimate winner.

Sure he's not suited for teams in a rebuilding process or ones who can't afford his requirements, but Guardiola isn't really in need of this. He doesn't have to prove himself by managing a team in free fall. He has already built his name and everyone knows which teams he's perfect for and which job he can do and to what level of success.

Klopp is a great manager but he's a different category from Guardiola and suits different teams than him. I see no issue in this.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. He also ditched Ronaldinho fearing that he would be a negative influence (party hard) for Messi. I can't believe that in this day and age people are still banging the "chequebook manager" drum. His influence on football in the last 15 years has been immense, with managers either taking notes from him or actively try to counter his style.
 
Guardiola compares very well to any manager, he’s incredible. He’s up there with Fergie as one of the best managers in history for sure.
 
Vidyoyo said:
Cruyff had far, and I mean far, more hair.

The rest is debatable.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and I do think this is sort of where the debate starts and end because realistically there’s no rebuttal after this.
 
el3mel said:
And Spain domination was thanks to Guardiola's Barca domination. Just a normal follow up.
Click to expand...

Spain's domination began in 2008, months before Guardiola took on the Barça job. In fact the term 'tiki-taka' was invented because of 2008 Spain, not because of Barcelona.
 
AltiUn said:
Guardiola compares very well to any manager, he’s incredible. He’s up there with Fergie as one of the best managers in history for sure.
Click to expand...

Stings we missed out before going to Bayern
 
el3mel said:
The way Pep's teams dominate their domestic competitions is a thing only his teams can manage. City weren't that ridiculously dominant force when he managed them. Barcelona too.

He manages great teams sure, but he elevates them to a level no other manager in the world is capable of even dreaming to reach. He might not be perfect to rebuild teams going down hill, but he's the perfect manager to help your teach reach the next level.
Click to expand...

Yeah don't see us ever being able to dominate games with such ease like his sides have been doing since 2008
 
Demyanenko_square_jaw said:
I think it's not easy to compare 90s and earlier managers with elite ones from the past 10-15 years. The amount of support and data available that allows the last generation of managers to refine their tactics on and off the ball is just on a completely different level than it was back then.
Click to expand...
Very good point!
Vidyoyo said:
Cruyff had far, and I mean far, more hair.

The rest is debatable.
Click to expand...
Yes

The real question is, is baldness a coaching aid???
 
el3mel said:
Messi also improved massively thanks to Guardiola, he wasn't the best player in the world before Guardiola, and he's the one who put him as a false nine which made most of his abilities explode.
Click to expand...

So Guardiola is the reason Messi’s talents exploded…? Rather than the fact that Messi is the greatest player of all time.

Rather than acknowledge that Guardiola was unbelievably lucky to’ve inherited Messi… it’s actually Messi who was lucky to’ve had Guardiola around to ‘make him the best player in the World’… right.


el3mel said:
And Spain domination was thanks to Guardiola's Barca domination. Just a normal follow up.
Click to expand...

That’s impossible, because Spain were already at it and playing the insane brand of football that they dominated with.

So, logically, you’d think it was Guardiola who was incredibly fortunate to inherit an entire generation of Spanish genius players and reap the rewards of their lifelong coaching - but no, it was actually Spain who were lucky that Guardiola was going to coach their players - IN THE FUTURE - and that’s what made them great…

el3mel said:
Bayern is the only team he managed that was already a dominant force before he got them.
Click to expand...

Not true. City won 6 trophies in the 5 seasons before he joined including 2 PL titles and were regularly described as the best team in the World in the media with talk of quadruples etc.

el3mel said:
We can talk about City financials as much as we want, but the reality is this level of domination over domestic trophies in England is unprecedented.
Click to expand...

‘Unprecedented’… let’s see…

In a 7 year period at City he’s won the following -

4 PL titles
1 FA Cup
4 League Cups

In a 7 year period, from 92 - 99, SAF won the following -

5 PL titles
3 FA Cups
1 CL title
1 League Cup

So Ferguson won more trophies in that period, and won a CL… and he did it without financial doping and being funded by a fecking country.

Arsene Wenger in a 7 year period, from 97 - 04 won -

3 PL titles
4 FA Cups

And genuinely changed the English game (more than any other manager has imo). Again this was done without cheating financially.

So ‘unprecedented’…? Nah, not the case.

He’s a really good manager if given what is essentially an unfair advantage, but there’s a lot of recency bias going on.
 
Last edited:
Some people still doubting Pep as a manager despite being on the verge of winning 11 leagues out of 14 years of management across 3 countries and cultures. Holds the record for most consecutive games won in Bundesliga, La Liga and Premier League.

Can’t all be luck. Relentless consistency from his teams.
 
I think Cruyff was more of a visionary, one of the greatest in the history of the game. He had more of an all encompassing vision of the game that won the hearts of many and defined the identity of a huge insitution like Barcelona. He had the personality and charisma of an all time influential figure that could apply in any field. Pep on the other hand went much deeper in the system, he is continuously honing and playing with coaching ideas and experiments being helped of course by the advantages at the disposal of modern coaches from technology to a higher concentration of wealth among Europe's elite. Pep's intensity and consistency is just ridiculous, how far he went into perfecting the implementation of his ideas and how much he challenged notions of how the game should be approached tactically from the late '90s to late '00s is his most admirable quality as a coach I would say.

I don't even think Pep's greatest achievement is the number of trophies, just like Messi's are not necessarily the number of goals he scored. It is that he is the only coach I can remember that could develop and implement a system that virtually ensured such high level of control and dominance over any team. I remember watching European football before him where it was just understood that big games between big European elites were a chess game where it was about punishing mistakes and "managing" the game, hence we talk about things like "professional performances" or in our case under Fergie, adapting to the requirements of European football etc... and it wasn't just us. Since Pep though, it was the first time I've seen in football where it was the accepted wisdom that his team will dominate you and you should hope to defend well and hope. That applied to the likes of Real Madrid and pretty much everyone his teams faced, teams of equal resources and prestige. I can't remember a system being so consistently dominant. So maybe in short, Cruyff is the greater visionary and Pep is the greater craftsman.
 
Cruyff literally made Barca a big team. Before him we had almost the same numbers of leagues as Atlético and 0 Champions Leagues, just like Atlético. Guardiola's style is literally and more modern version of Cruyff's. It's clear to me that Cruyff was more influential, however, Guardiola has won more trophies and may eventually surpass Sir Alex.
 
Cruyff put Barcelona in the map, i think that's as valuable as what Pep did with Barca and the 'sextete'.
Before Cruyff arrived at Barca as coach, Real Madrid had 26 league titles and Barcelona only 10, and nowhere near to close to challenge for La Liga.

I think you can't compare Pep to old managers considering the financial gap between top teams and the rest wasn't as big as today, as a matter of fact you can't compare modern managers to old managers because of that exact reason.

Most modern managers in big clubs now are going to look better than old managers in terms of winrate and trophies given how huge is the gap between top teams and mid/lower table clubs now because of finances and Bosman law.
 
Last edited:
Rhyme Animal said:
So Guardiola is the reason Messi’s talents exploded…? Rather than the fact that Messi is the greatest player of all time.

Rather than acknowledge that Guardiola was unbelievably lucky to’ve inherited Messi… it’s actually Messi who was lucky to’ve had Guardiola around to ‘make him the best player in the World’… right.




That’s impossible, because Spain were already at it and playing the insane brand of football that they dominated with.

So, logically, you’d think it was Guardiola who was incredibly fortunate to inherit an entire generation of Spanish genius players and reap the rewards of their lifelong coaching - but no, it was actually Spain who were lucky that Guardiola was going to coach their players - IN THE FUTURE - and that’s what made them great…



Not true. City won 6 trophies in the 5 seasons before he joined including 2 PL titles and were regularly described as the best team in the World in the media with talk of quadruples etc.



‘Unprecedented’… let’s see…

In a 7 year period at City he’s won the following -

4 PL titles
1 FA Cup
4 League Cups

In a 7 year period, from 92 - 99, SAF won the following -

5 PL titles
3 FA Cups
1 CL title
1 League Cup

So Ferguson won more trophies in that period, and won a CL… and he did it without financial doping and being funded by a fecking country.

Arsene Wenger in a 7 year period, from 97 - 04 won -

3 PL titles
4 FA Cups

And genuinely changed the English game (more than any other manager has imo). Again this was done without cheating financially.

So ‘unprecedented’…? Nah, not the case.

He’s a really good manager if given what is essentially an unfair advantage, but there’s a lot of recency bias going on.
Click to expand...

Both Messi and Guardiola benefited from each other. Of course Messi was insanely talented, but without Guardiola he wouldn't have reached the level he did.

The brand of football Spain played in EURO 2008 wasn't the same played in 2010 and 2012.

City won 2 league titles in 5 years before Guardiola got the job, then went on and won 4 titles in 6 years under him (and the 5th title in 7 years is few matches away from being official).

Finally, the last comparison don't count the current season in which they have the league in their pocket and competing for a treble.

No one is doubting the talent of the players he managed. We are saying they were also fortunate to have him as their manager in such stage of their career. He helped them became what they became.
 
Pep is not even the best bald manager that was inspired by Cruyff.
 
KeanoMagicHat said:
Some people still doubting Pep as a manager despite being on the verge of winning 11 leagues out of 14 years of management across 3 countries and cultures. Holds the record for most consecutive games won in Bundesliga, La Liga and Premier League.

Can’t all be luck. Relentless consistency from his teams.
Click to expand...

None of the doubters have any relevancy in football. This debate on whether Pep's credentials are legit would be seen as idiotic in any changing room or club board room. I've never heard 1 player or coach come out and question his credentials; actually it's the opposite where many experts go out of their way to acknowledge and respect his pedigree.

The "well actually Pep had a stacked team at Barcelona"... That debate is reserved for the idiots on Twitter. Oh yeah, and the Caf. Bastions of knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.