Well given that this thread seemed to be created basically in response to him winning a treble with City, I don't think it's unfair to use the trophies and numbers argument. I'd argue with Mourinho not being able to create a team like that, his counter attacking real side was incredible and was the first one to really show how to be able to counter guardiola's Barca. I dont even know how much you could say pep's system is copied given that it basically needs brilliant players in every single position to be able to work effectively.
Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?
- Thread starter Irrational.
- Start date
Well given that this thread seemed to be created basically in response to him winning a treble with City, I don't think it's unfair to use the trophies and numbers argument. I'd argue with Mourinho not being able to create a team like that, his counter attacking real side was incredible and was the first one to really show how to be able to counter guardiola's Barca. I dont even know how much you could say pep's system is copied given that it basically needs brilliant players in every single position to be able to work effectively.
Possibly.
Enrique also won the treble after all.
At Bayern Heynckes and Flick won it.
But then Ancelotti didn’t do well in the CL with Chelsea for some reason.
Mourinho didn’t win CL with Chelsea either.
However his CL with Porto or treble with Inter have not been replicated since.
There are indeed many managers/coaches who did well under less ideal circumstances/with less resources than Pep usually has at his disposal.
Yes because leaving a playing style legacy doesn't count for much if you don't win. So Pep needs to win to compliment his legacy. Michels, Cruyff and Sacchi are considered all time greats and they haven't won that much for example. It just shows how much people in the football community value an innovator and a tactical influencer.
Mourinho's side was great, no argument there but there is a different between great and arguably the greatest of all time. I don't really understand how you can argue his methods are not copied. Should we go back to the early '00s when people in England said Pep can't play his brand of football in the PL? Look at how the top teams are playing now with the emphasis on positional play and passing from the back and compare it to how games were played in the '00s. I don't really need to go on about this since it's well documented by people who are more qualified than you or I and who actually work in the game. Prominent current managers cite him as their main influence. They might not be able to copy his teams to a T but his methods are being used by many. Pre Barcelona, it was the accepted wisdom that you play the big games with caution and wait for the mistake. After his Barcelona, winning was no longer enough for the elite clubs, they started talking about winning with dominance. Abramovic wanted a piece of that, we did, Bayern did and of course the Sheikhs did. Why? Why didn't they show the same desire towards other coaches?
No guarantee that Mourinho wins the CL with either Barcelona or Man City, given that he wasn’t able to win it with Chelsea, including during his first spell there when they had greater spending power than any other club in the world, or Real Madrid when he inherited the most expensively assembled squad in history at the time with a 25 year old Ronaldo that had entered his physical peak in it (I believe that Ronaldo spent more time injured during Pellegrini’s 1 season there, than during all 3 of Mourinho’s combined). Real Madrid were easily the best team in Europe in 2011/2012, but Mourinho wanting to settle for a draw in Munich after equalising, and then play defensively after going 2-0 up at home in the 2nd leg, was costly.
He clearly could never win 5 league titles in 6 years at any club, as he wouldn’t be able last anywhere near long enough in any one role to put himself in a position to do that.
But he has ‘underdog’ achievements that Guardiola doesn’t have. Leading Leiria to their best ever league finish at the time in 2000/2001, and to 3rd place midway through 2001/2002 before leaving to take the Porto job (I think that Leiria were ahead of both Porto and Benfica in the league at time), with next to no money to spend, was outstanding. And as I’ve said before, at the time of the 2003 UEFA Cup final, his Porto team was built on half the budget compared to Martin O’Neill’s Celtic team, and during his time there, the transfer fees on player sales exceeded those on player arrivals. Even before we consider the 2003/2004 CL campaign, winning the UEFA Cup in 2003 with them was already a hugely impressive achievement.
But on the flipside Guardiola’s influence on the sport, even if we avoid overhyping it compared to figures from previous eras, has clearly been far greater than Mourinho’s. It’s also telling that when Guardiola left Barcelona and Bayern, I’d wager that most fans of those clubs wanted him to stay, and there’s an excellent chance that when he leaves City most of their fans will be pretty sad about it while most fans of rival clubs will be delighted. But when Mourinho has entered a full third season at any club and any big club, many of their fans have been relieved and happy when he has left.
He clearly could never win 5 league titles in 6 years at any club, as he wouldn’t be able last anywhere near long enough in any one role to put himself in a position to do that.
But he has ‘underdog’ achievements that Guardiola doesn’t have. Leading Leiria to their best ever league finish at the time in 2000/2001, and to 3rd place midway through 2001/2002 before leaving to take the Porto job (I think that Leiria were ahead of both Porto and Benfica in the league at time), with next to no money to spend, was outstanding. And as I’ve said before, at the time of the 2003 UEFA Cup final, his Porto team was built on half the budget compared to Martin O’Neill’s Celtic team, and during his time there, the transfer fees on player sales exceeded those on player arrivals. Even before we consider the 2003/2004 CL campaign, winning the UEFA Cup in 2003 with them was already a hugely impressive achievement.
But on the flipside Guardiola’s influence on the sport, even if we avoid overhyping it compared to figures from previous eras, has clearly been far greater than Mourinho’s. It’s also telling that when Guardiola left Barcelona and Bayern, I’d wager that most fans of those clubs wanted him to stay, and there’s an excellent chance that when he leaves City most of their fans will be pretty sad about it while most fans of rival clubs will be delighted. But when Mourinho has entered a full third season at any club and any big club, many of their fans have been relieved and happy when he has left.
Last edited:
And Guardiola is not yet retired. He still got at least 5 good years in him the numbers could still adds up.
As for United fans SAF would always be the greatest ever.
As for United fans SAF would always be the greatest ever.
He is a top manager, but he always had infinite resources at his disposal. Even though oil money doesn't guarantee sucess, but he could cherry pick the best players to play for him.
You mean Mourinho will make Busquets Pique Xavi Iniesta and Messi play and win? No
Rather he would replace them with physical specimen who can run and defend with their lives. Retain Van Bommel, Marquez Seydou Keita sell Xavi Iniesta Busquets. Tell Messi to track back or get sold like Salah
Teach them how Barcelona is always an underdog
Chelsea was similar to this City and he never won the CL in 2 spells.
Barca was similar to Madrid and he never won the CL with them
We can extend it even further to see how ridiculous it is
Could Pep Ferguson Klopp have won the CL with 2012 Chelsea after going down to 10men vs peak Barcelona at Nou camp with Messi and Robben missing crucial penalties No
Dimatteo did it. So make your conclusions
Mourinho had Balon dor Ronaldo Kaka at Madrid and didn't win the CL
He had a blank check and outspent everyone even had the luxury of picking the best players from Milan Shevchenko and Bayern captain Ballack to decorate his bench and didn't win
I know many coaches who won the CL in less than these circumstances with zero balon dor
After Bayern lost 4-0 to Peps Barcelona in 2009
Rummenigge and Hoeness said "we want this type of football in Munich". That was before Pep even won his first CL title so it's not just about the winning, its about how you play to win. Dimatteo won, Mourinho won. How many coaches or club owners are copying their style?
Man utd had to hold their noses to endure Mourinho football and personality hoping to get a league or CL before he flames out.
So when Pep became slightly available, they fast tracked Juups retirement and hired Pep.
After Peps 2 seasons at Bayern they begged him to continue he refused.
After Bayern sacked Carlo, Ulli and Kalle invited Pep to Munich and asked for his opinion on who should be Bayern next coach
Despite Pep not winning the CL at Bayern, he is still highly revered by top bosses
If Ferguson has his way at this moment he will hand the keys of Man utd to Pep to do as he wishes
Almost every club who can afford it will do the same
Hardly in football circles do you see such influential men defer to a coach like that. These are former Balon dor winners who know about football way more than internet board posters
Any of Peps former club will gladly take Pep back and I believe 95% of clubs will do the same.
At this point it's hard to name 2 top clubs who will take Mourinho. There is a reason why Roma and Spurs are his most recent jobs
To be fair I actually think biggest job might not be the easiest. It does seem easy as the manager got more resources than his rivals, but it’s also not easy as the expectation would be sky high and they simply cannot afford any room for failure.
Just look at how many managers got sacked or replaced from those bigger jobs over the years - Real Madrid, Barca, PSG, Chelsea, Man Utd etc.
Bayern just fired a coach who was in the running for a treble for daring to be 1 point behind Dortmund after destroying PSG home and away
At Aberdeen, Sir Alex was the first manager in 15 years to break the Old Firm dominance in Scotland. He won the league 3 times and it has not been repeated by anyone in the 38 years since. He also won 2 European Trophies there. He took an average team in Scotland and made them a power house.
When Sir Alex won the league with United, we hadn't won it for 26 years. He then won it a record 13 times – no club in England has won more than than him except us and Liverpool. He transformed United into a super power.
When Pep took over Barca, they'd last won the league 2 years earlier. When he took over Bayern, they were league champions and European champions. When he took over City, they'd won the league 2 years earlier. He essentially took charge of three super powers and kept them super powers. They were all expected to win titles, had title winning budgets and that is exactly what he delivered. Not to mention the investigations into refereeing bribery and the 115 charges hanging over 2 of his 3 tenures.
To me the achievements are very different, and until Pep shows he can win a title with a small budget or a team of Welbecks, Jones and Cleverleys, Sir Alex will always be the better manager.
When Sir Alex won the league with United, we hadn't won it for 26 years. He then won it a record 13 times – no club in England has won more than than him except us and Liverpool. He transformed United into a super power.
When Pep took over Barca, they'd last won the league 2 years earlier. When he took over Bayern, they were league champions and European champions. When he took over City, they'd won the league 2 years earlier. He essentially took charge of three super powers and kept them super powers. They were all expected to win titles, had title winning budgets and that is exactly what he delivered. Not to mention the investigations into refereeing bribery and the 115 charges hanging over 2 of his 3 tenures.
To me the achievements are very different, and until Pep shows he can win a title with a small budget or a team of Welbecks, Jones and Cleverleys, Sir Alex will always be the better manager.
Peak Mourinho would not have won a treble with Pep’s Barca for the simple reason that those were not his kind of players. He used a certain kind of players to achieve his success. There is a reason why there was a kick-back from his players at Real. They, being more expressive and technically gifted, were fed up with the conservative football that Jose was offering and the rest is history.
In any case, Jose achieved success using those methods at the time but right now he needs some tactical adaptation to be in the conversation for best manager.
Guardiola is 52, I'd say he has at least 10 years or even more.
At the rate his winning trophies, he has high chances to surpass SAF, he's now joint second with Mircea Lucescu, but Lucescu never won trophies in major leagues.
I'm starting to believe that, by the end of his career, he will indeed become the greatest manager of all time and I'm afraid he's making a goal out of that.
So far so good none of the mentioned names have been able to match Pep’s sustained success at the top and this counts. It’s one thing to achieve a treble and another thing to continue to be in and around the conversation of winning at the highest level. Looking at the highlights of managers’ careers would help a narrative but the truth of how well they performed can be seen when you look at the entirety of their coaching careers. Enrique had to quit Spain when the lost out at round of 16 and Flick’s Germany couldn’t get out of the group stages even with the wealth of stars in their disposal.
What Jose did at Porto/Inter earned him a place as the best manager of that time but since then it’s been a downward spiral because he wasn’t evolving with the game.
What a depressing thread, for a United fan. And it's a lot to do with the fact that now its not easy to dismiss Pep in the list of greats.
I think he'll want a shot or 2 at the World Cup as well.
The idea that Real Madrid was winning against all odds is hilarious. They're Real Madrid, and still hade a sizeable amount of players that had won 3/4 previous Champions Leagues. This does not qualify as winning against all odds, not at all.
Imagine for a while that Pep called it quits on City a couple of years back to go to Real Madrid himself. If he would have won CL there it would most definitely be written off as well it's Real Madrid, they always win the Champions League.
Depends on who is manager of City though. Arsenal pushed City this year, no reason Arsenal managed by Pep couldn't have pushed City even more and even won it. There's also a big difference in going for all trophies and focusing on just the one that Arsenal did this year.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't really mean it's not a challenge, I would definitely say that taking on the biggest jobs would be challenging. But if we consider all jobs that Pep has taken on to be safe non-challenges I wouldn't say Inter is a challenge either. You can't really have it both ways.
It's surprising how many people on various social media call him a cheque book manager and reference all the cheating. I thought it was just us who saw him that way.
If he ever wants to be considered the greatest he has to go somewhere without a ready made team and unlimited budget. He'll always be tier 2 otherwise.
If he ever wants to be considered the greatest he has to go somewhere without a ready made team and unlimited budget. He'll always be tier 2 otherwise.
Pep can be anything, but on the other hand he is a very good coach, perhaps one of the greatest after Fergie of course.
Many people do not respect his achievements because he always had a lot of financial support, but he always used these funds wisely. Other teams give a lot of money for transfers too, the difference with him is that he always buys quality players who raise the level of the team, unlike United, who for the last 10 years threw 1 billion for deadwood.
Whatever we say about him, even though I don't like him, he has proven himself to be one of the greatest coaches in history. I've always wondered what if he had chosen United years ago and we had provided everything he wanted. Maybe he would have won a treble with us by now.
Many people do not respect his achievements because he always had a lot of financial support, but he always used these funds wisely. Other teams give a lot of money for transfers too, the difference with him is that he always buys quality players who raise the level of the team, unlike United, who for the last 10 years threw 1 billion for deadwood.
Whatever we say about him, even though I don't like him, he has proven himself to be one of the greatest coaches in history. I've always wondered what if he had chosen United years ago and we had provided everything he wanted. Maybe he would have won a treble with us by now.
He's the best of his era, by a long way. For me, there is an inherent difficulty in comparing coaches from different eras - what worked in one era for one coach wouldn't have been a viable option for another coach in another era, conditions from player egos to agent power to money in the game were different, style of play you came up against and refereeing standards (especially concerning what cloggers could get away against flair players) were different. This doesn't mean we can't have a 'best of all time' coach/manager but it does mean the requirements are different - he'd have to be so clearly the best that even bringing up all this seems irrelevant because of the sheer scale of what was achieved being so far out in front of everyone else. I don't think any of the managerial greats, formidable as they were within their own times, have reached that and I'm not ready to say that about any coach from my lifetime. If Pep keeps this up for another ten years perhaps we can begin to have the conversation.
Pep's jobs were definitely not easy. It's just that at Bayern and City, he really had one main job - the CL. In that regard, he din't succeed at Bayern and took 8 years to do so at City.
In contrast, Liverpool were not wanting for CLs and so Klopp had one main job - end the PL drought. He got there faster and cheaper, beating Pep along the way. Plus, considering the other two seasons where City beat Liverpool to the title by a point on fine margins, I feel that it's even debatable whether Pep is head and shoulder above other managers of his own era. Discussions of him being the best ever seem a bit premature.
The quality of football Pep’s teams played is IMO a big factor why I consider him the Goat. In all my time watching football, I think the three best teams I have seen are Barca 2010-2011, City 2022-2023 and Barca 2008-2009 (in that order). All three managed by him (and all three winning trebles). Except Barca 08-09, they weren’t even particularly lucky in the road to treble. There was a feeling of almost hopelessness when facing them, teams would be happy by just not being spanked, let alone thinking that they can defeat them.
If three best teams of all time are managed by the same man, there has to be something amazing there.
If three best teams of all time are managed by the same man, there has to be something amazing there.
You know these are basically the same team? Probably 8 of the 11 were in both sides.
people say he can’t do it without a massive budget but the same people forget he used to manage a londis in his spare time.
And that will never happen because why should he?
Listen to this, Warren Buffett has to step away from his centi-billion investment house and manage a 100k portfolio without any specialist support, and still generate the same % returns as he did previously. Otherwise I do not rate him. Yup sounds stupid.
Thats a terrible comparison. The reason Warren Buffet has his centi billion investment house is because he built it all himself.
Last edited:
You're right that nobody can blame Pep for taking the jobs he has, but it's fair to count against his achievements that he's only ever managed teams with more resources than any other in his league, and has never conquered a dominant team or ever been an underdog really.
Who is a tier above Guardiola then?
There's a lot of hyperbole in this post, not least that the 2011 treble wasn't the real treble.
As for the quality of football, Pep's City are miles ahead of his Barca team - Pep's Barca teams were mind numbingly dull to watch, they would hold onto the ball with little purpose other than keeping it for so much of matches, as Messi's magic would get them through. His City team is genuinely much better, but the quality of football they play is still exaggerated - as much as I hate to say it, I'd rather watch Klopp's Liverpool every time.
Only 6 players of Barca started both the finals of UCL. The teams had much in common (goalkeeper, Pique, midfield and Messi) but there were many differences in the teams and the style of play had changed quite a lot IMO (2011 was much more possession and pressing based while the 2009 team was more direct).
In any case, I think the teams had changed a lot. In 2011, the midfield was even more dominant, Alves was essentially playing in midfield (like Stones now), Mascherano had come and become a defender, Messi had become a No.9 instead of an inside forward, he was also much more important than in 2009 (while he was the best player back then too, Xavi and Iniesta were almost as important while in 2011 it had become Messi’s show). Stylistically, they were very different teams.
Last edited:
I would say Barca 2011 was considered better. Pretty much everyone was rating it as the best ever team, which I do not think it is the case with City yet.
Being boring to watch is a bit subjective and that can be debated to death. When I say quality of football, I mean dominating matches and essentially winning them. Klopp hasn’t been able to do that in a comparable scale to Pep, heck he wasn’t able to ever win a double league-UCL, let alone treble (and let alone be such a massive favorite). His teams are more exciting to watch, I agree, but the quality of football of City is way higher.
Ferguson, Michels, Clough, Ancelotti and a couple of others
Even if it were the same individuals, it could still be a very different team. I think that's part of the reason why many underrate Guardiola in here - they are still stuck with the idea that a manager's job is to assemble a great set of individuals rather than the concept of a coach who is in charge of implementing a play style and shared philosophy. Which is why there's so much attention on Guardiola's players but not as much on how he leaves his handwriting on every team he oversees.
Of course he only works with great players but that's because he's a great coach and has earned a reputation that allows him to pick with whom he wants to work. The idea that he requires this quality is understandable on paper since the only "bad" team he had punch above its weight was Barca B 15 years ago. But when you actually watch his teams and the effect he has on their organization and playing style, I think the notion that he couldn't make any team much better is untenable.
He doesn’t have to go to Luton to prove himself, but he’s never managed a squad which wasn’t the strongest in the league at the time, and probably the world. He’s met domestic expectations with the clubs he’s managed, and arguably underperformed in Europe.
He’s never been in a situation where he’s had to overcome a stronger adversary and won, basically where his squad is seen as the underdog.