Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[Bearded One]

Brighton, Brentford and Villa have had really good seasons for sure, and yes, with the cash and allure of the Premiership, the sense of competition increases... v v good players now regularly join mid-table Premiership teams (remember Coutinho? But I still question the quality of the league. Brighton struggled to beat us in some games for example, and we aren't fabulous, we are v much work in progress and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is a huge amount of coverage and hype, the football industry is staggering. But let's remain objective. Bayern, Real are going through transitions on the pitch, look at them, changing big players, management, executive staff, and Inter were not some great CL team... they were organised, and maximise their resources (like us really..) but that's also a team which is seeking to build.

City are an experienced package and were better than what I would contend, has been a relatively average European club scene. Consider thar Barca team with Messi, Eto, Ronaldhino, Marques, Iniesta, Xavi... they would wipe the floor of this City team. Our team of Rooney, CR7 and Tevez would smash them up.

This is a great achievement by City, but the competition at the v top has been better in the recent past.

Real Madrid is not so much different from what they have been couple of seasons ago. They have a habit of having a poor league season turn into a very fantastic champions league ending. Even now they have a good mix of young and experienced players. We’d never know if another manager would have produced better results perhaps. Bayern have the same crop of players - a very talented bunch. They have a world class bunch - players like Kimmich, Davies, De Ligt, Conan, Gnarbry, Mane, Sane would walk into moats teams in Europe. Granted they changed manager before they played city given how underwhelming Tuchel’s predecessor was. This was meant to get to City psychologically because it was thought that Tuchel knows Pep quite well and even beat him to the UCL crown couple of years back. Liverpool would have been the other team to give city problems but they had a poor season by their standards.

I try to exercise a bit of caution making comparisons across eras and here’s why. There is an unprecedented level of science being applied to football these days as data is available in magnitudes never seen before. The implication is that “superstars” are reined in much easier than ever before because you can study and study and look out for their weaknesses and then exploit these weaknesses. This is not to say that stars wouldn’t find their way to deliver, it’s just that in sport science has given us the tools to contain stars better in this day.

 

[Bearded One]

I don't think it was Mou's style as much as it was his usual personality clash. I don't think pep could have turned Liverpool into a 99 point team given ten seasons. Look at how quickly he discards 50m pound signings at man city, mahrez for 60m on the bench. Klopp has needed to have an unreal transfer hit rate because he doesn't get the luxury of just discarding players signed for 60 or 70m, no manager would outside of city

The clashes were there alright but I am very sure that the players also complained that his style didn’t allow them express themselves as freely as they would have loved. “You don’t think” you say but I do think so. When you look at Lego Pep - he had a genuine shout at winning the league with Arsenal largely gleaning from Pep’s book. Kompany at Burnley is no different. I don’t see what the problem would be achieving what Klopp did in four years if he is allowed to replace almost the entire squad the way Klopp did. Mahrez is on the bench a lot of times but let’s not forget Redcafe was going mad when Liverpool signed Naby Keita. Cancelo and Pep fell out and they have Akanji playing there now. This doesn’t mean Cancelo wasn’t a hit. He made the EPL team of the year last season. Sane’s departure from City was a loss for them as well but can you really say Sane was a miss? I don’t think so.

I don't understand how any of this relates to what I posted. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing or just using ChatGPT? What is "the truth"' and what does length and breadth of a career mean? What different standards am I holding them to? I literally quoted a few facts and said that based on them, it's not even obvious to me that Pep is definitely better than Klopp.

That’s fine I’m only saying that whenever you make a judgement don’t use highlights of managers’ careers. That wouldn’t reveal too much in my opinion.

 

[11101]

He usually has the best team in the league because he makes them the best team in the league.

Every team he's ever managed has won their league within the previous 3 seasons.

 

[Zehner]

Every team he's ever managed has won their league within the previous 3 seasons.

Every team Messi or Ronaldo ever joined had won their league within the previous three seasons. You can probably add hundreds of universally agreed world class players to that list. So what?

Guardiola gets the absolute best out of his teams. It's a quality to make even the best individual teams punch above their weight. No other coach does this to the same extent. And there are more than enough world class coaches with top squads who go through transition phases and dry patches despite spending crazy amounts as well. Not Guardiola, his teams are automatically favourites. That's unmatched.

 

[Zen86]

Right, and does pep get any of his teams to play to more than the sum of their parts? I mean you can look at klopp and say what he did with Liverpool was miraculous, I don't see pep being able to replicate that if given the same players and resources, whereas I'd imagine klopp could replicate pep's success given City's players and resources

Agreed. Klopp’s teams punch above their weight, Pep’s teams deliver as they should.

The key point is that Pep has had teams of an unparalleled calibre to work with, which distorts any comparison.

 

[Zehner]

I think he is certainly amongst the greatest tactical philosophers of all time, perhaps even the greatest..but the term 'manager' encompasses a lot more than that IMO, and it's a perfectly valid opinion the someone who has been the favourite in 97%-99% of his matches doesn't just get a free pass at it. There are people who can work miracles in entirely different situations, whose strengths don't align with Peps, and his not with theirs... People who have repeatedly improved crap teams, or gotten underdogs competing with the very best have done things as incomparable with his achievements as he has done things incomparable with theirs. It's like comparing teams from different eras. Even in this era I'd say Klopp has a very valid shout at playing just as attractive football, only with significantly less backing, and consistently with teams who weren't the top dogs in their league. The fact he's been stopped from being so dominant by Pep's City is hilarious for us United fans, but also just as (if not way more) circumstantial than 'managerial'

The problem with his City stint is that he's been playing a conceptual computer game for 7 years, and doesn't have to deal with the same things that all other managers do (sticking with an underperforming player on a long contract, depleted squad options, tiredness from lack of rotation, having Wout Weghorst etc) He's basically had a free shot at implementing his philosophy in a perfect controlled environment, which is great for him, but quite clearly separates him from how everyone else has had to manage and raises valid question marks about whether we can just chuck the GOAT label at him 'cos he's won X playing some nice stuff with everything in his favour.

I partly agree that Pep is no manager. But that is true for Klopp as well - England was the only place in European football where the default structure featured this role. Which is why it is so hard to compare today's coaches with Fergie.

Anyway, I think part of the reason Pep never has to deal with sticking with underperforming players etc. is that he knows what he's doing and how to integrate players in his system. He doesn't have City buy Sancho and then has no idea what kind of player he is. He knows exactly what he needs and how to utilize it. And he has the authority to leave players on the bench if need be since they know he's the best in the business.

Which is why he can sign a player such as Akanji whose departure wasn't considered a loss for Dortmund and turn him into one of the best defenders in the world. So many players who joined City improved enormously. It is what he does, he provides players the ideal platforms to shine with his system.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Well I think people didn't realise what kind of talent Messi was before he took over.

He'd finished 3rd and 2nd in the 2007 and 2008 Balon d'Ors, people knew he was an amazing talent. He's the one who chose to build around him.

Xavi and ineista had just been a key part of winning the euros before he took over.

Plenty of players win international trophies. There was no general perception that because Spain had won the Euros, and Xavi had been the best player, Barcelona were now favorites for everything.
Guardiola was an appointment to help Barcelona rebuild. Instead he won every title in his first season and then almost repeated the achievement two years later.

 

[united_99]

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

Who was talking about balon dor? Also I never said Mourinho was perfect, I have many negative things to say about him. That this mean that he never did extraordinary things.
But yes, your current manager is one example of the less ideal circumstances I was talking about. While it took Pep 7 years of financial doping and unlimited money to win it with City, Tuchel won it in less than 7 months with Chelsea.

 

[jm99]

He'd finished 3rd and 2nd in the 2007 and 2008 Balon d'Ors, people knew he was an amazing talent. He's the one who chose to build around him.


Plenty of players win international trophies. There was no general perception that because Spain had won the Euros, and Xavi had been the best player, Barcelona were now favorites for everything.
Guardiola was an appointment to help Barcelona rebuild. Instead he won every title in his first season and then almost repeated the achievement two years later.
[/QUOTE

Barcelona had 2 of the top 5 in the ballon d'or in 2008, while winning the treble wasn't expected beforehand, looking at the players they had in hindsight, it wasn't a massive overacheivement that no other manager could have done

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

I just don't see how you could put this question up knowing his club has been cheating for over a decade, the technicality of how they get off legally aside, and casually shit on SAF's legacy.

If I wanted to read this bullshit, inviting 'opinion' for a debate, I'd read Athletic's comments section or RAWK or Twitter. The Caf is primarily a place for United supporters, and I hate how this thread (and all the City wanking threads) can exist. The title itself is clickbaity and leading, like Buzzfeed articles or a Tucker Carlson headline on Fox.

The caf is a poorer place for United fans thanks to people like the OP. It's quite unfortunate.

 

[jm99]

Every team Messi or Ronaldo ever joined had won their league within the previous three seasons. You can probably add hundreds of universally agreed world class players to that list. So what?

Guardiola gets the absolute best out of his teams. It's a quality to make even the best individual teams punch above their weight. No other coach does this to the same extent. And there are more than enough world class coaches with top squads who go through transition phases and dry patches despite spending crazy amounts as well. Not Guardiola, his teams are automatically favourites. That's unmatched.

I can't belive this is how I find out that we won a Premier league under either mourinho or solskjaer

 

[erikcred]

That’s fine I’m only saying that whenever you make a judgement don’t use highlights of managers’ careers. That wouldn’t reveal too much in my opinion.

But what else can we do? Unless there's a secret metric you have that quantifies this length and breadth stuff. It's a sensible idea, but not practical.

In my opinion, for a manager to be acknowledged as the undisputed greatest ever, there must be evidence that in every aspect of the job, he has to be at least as good as any other manager. Sometimes this is easily evidenced and other times, it's impossible.

 

[Zehner]

I can't belive this is how I find out that we won a Premier league under either mourinho or solskjaer

Is this really important? I think the point I was making is clear

 

[kaiser1]

Who was talking about balon dor? Also I never said Mourinho was perfect, I have many negative things to say about him. That this mean that he never did extraordinary things.
But yes, your current manager is one example of the less ideal circumstances I was talking about. While it took Pep 7 years of financial doping and unlimited money to win it with City, Tuchel won it in less than 7 months with Chelsea.

Tuchel was given a more than ideal PSG and he tanked it

Given Bayern and he was humiliated out

Tuchel basically dus what Dimatteo did. Patched a team together to win a cup competition
When Tuchel was given full reigns we saw the circus that Chelsea turned into

 

[united_99]

We didn't lose to Real away in 2004, we drew.
Also that Deportivo team was very strong, they lost 4-1 away to AC Milan's super team then trashed them 4-0 at home.
Monaco eliminated Real and Ranieri's Chelsea that in turn had eliminated invincibles' Arsenal.
Lyon was very strong as well in this era.
This wasn't 2023, there were several strong teams and the scales weren't as unbalanced back then.

Also this years' Bayern and Real were still contenders to the CL as some of the best teams but they're not truly great this year (Bayern almost lost the bundesliga and Real had a close race for 2nd with Atlético).

Mourinho coached Ronaldo and Kaká (past his prime) with Real, in the 6 years before he came Real had been eliminated in the R16 every single year.
He brought them to 3 semi finals, losing one to a super Barça, another on penalties to Bayern (way less embarassing than losing to a subpar Chelsea with super Barça) and Dortmund which was yes a clear bad result (team was already imploding before though).
Compare that to Pep's Bayern, in the previous 4 years they had reached 3 CL finals (winning one, the year before) and he didn't get to reach one in his time there.

All those 3 players were amazing under Mourinho, Fabregas had been good for a long while in a titleless Arsenal, Deco was with Rijkard for a while and Ozil had 1 good year with Arsenal... but this is... his fault? How?
Silva was already amazing before Pep. Remember that 6-1 for instance? City already had some very good players.
Pep's City had embarassing losses every year in the CL except this year, for such a long time prepared and expensive team is that good, 1 CL out of all that?

Pep has the merit of putting that super Barça team togethern (just note however that Barça had won the CL 2 years before...) but do you really want to compare the treble Bayern and Oilchester City to what Mourinho had been doing?
Mourinho put up together with pennies a UEFA cup + CL winning team with Porto, then went to Oilsea yes but they had won nothing before and had just starting the money flow, he didn't win the CL here and that is a fail.
Then he went to Inter and in Europe (in italy it was a formality due to calciopoli) in the first year was meh, sold his best player and put up a team to win a CL (again with not a clear favourite), eliminating Pep super barça.
What does he do next? One of the hardest jobs - go to a european humiliated Real (for several seasons) and to face directly against super barça. Real suddenly gets 3 CL semis, beats barça in the league, turns the tables later in his stint and barça struggles to beat real 1 on 1.
Then he goes to a meh chelsea, wins them the league.
Then a thrashed united, with terrible years and a terrible squad (compare this to Pep arriving at a very good City team that had been champion 2 times in the 4 years before iirc).
Mourinho wins 2 cups (and CL access) and Pep ends up 3rd (iirc). Pep is showered even more money to join his already quality squad. Next year Pep gets 1st place, Mou gets 2nd with a much much worse squad.
Mou eventually leaves Utd mid year in a civil war and goes to might be top 4... Spurs.
City keeps getting more and more money, wins some leagues, is beaten in the CL by everyone.
Now after years and years of managing CL winning teams he finally does it once. Yay...?

Don't get me wrong, Guardiola is a good manager and his style works very well if he has the players. But notice the big IF.
He needed 10 years in some of the strongest CL winning squad to win the CL (Bayern + City). Is this GOAT level?
He is an excellent manager that has been riding the circunstances, he never had to struggle with a team, he was handed great teams out of the bat (with the exception of the first year of the barça team he created).

Great post. Oh and “Oilsea”, haven’t seen this before. Good one. I am more used to Ch€l$ki.

 

[jm99]

Is this really important? I think the point I was making is clear

Well tbf Ronaldo joined a real Madrid that hadn't reached a championsleague semi final since 2003 and had pep's Barca as domestic rivals. Messi stayed at Barca even as they declined a bit. Pep joined bayern that had just won the treble and City with limitless resources in a league where the reigning champions were Leicester. I don't think the scale of challenges they've taken on are comparable

 

[Dancfc]

SAF obviously.

I'd have Don Carlo there too.

Ironically, if Pep took the "proper challenges" Carlo did (Napoli and Everton) and underwhelmed in the same way the narrative would have been "see this is the real Pep without the money".

 

[Dancfc]

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.

That's what happens when you create the greatest side of all time in his first job.

And yes create not inherit, he took over a side that finished double figure points behind Villarreal.

He hardly took over a ready made set up at City either, in 15/16 their points haul from mid September onwards was marginally better than ours.

Bayern he did take over a treble team but that in itself brings its unique challenges, ask Rafa.

Ferguson, Michels, Clough, Ancelotti and a couple of others

Ancelotti spent the best part of two decades only taking jobs with a top two team and won less league titles than Pep did in half the time.

Then bombed at the so called "proper challenges" Pep apparently has to take to prove himself to the point he was considered even more finished than Mourinho until he returned to Real.

 

[11101]

Every team Messi or Ronaldo ever joined had won their league within the previous three seasons. You can probably add hundreds of universally agreed world class players to that list. So what?

Guardiola gets the absolute best out of his teams. It's a quality to make even the best individual teams punch above their weight. No other coach does this to the same extent. And there are more than enough world class coaches with top squads who go through transition phases and dry patches despite spending crazy amounts as well. Not Guardiola, his teams are automatically favourites. That's unmatched.

He's great at getting good players playing well, no doubt. What the greatest coaches do is get average players playing well. He's never even attempted that. The closest was City when he first joined, and he failed.

Put it another way. There are discussions all over the world like this one, some people proclaiming his greatness and others questioning it. Do you think anybody questions Sir Alex? Or Rinus Michels? Of course not. The true greats are unanimous.

 

[11101]

That's what happens when you create the greatest side of all time in his first job.

And yes create not inherit, he took over a side that finished double figure points behind Villarreal.

He hardly took over a ready made set up at City either, in 15/16 their points haul from mid September onwards was marginally better than ours.

Bayern he did take over a treble team but that in itself brings its unique challenges, ask Rafa.


Ancelotti spent the best part of two decades only taking jobs with a top two team and won less league titles than Pep did in half the time.

Then bombed at the so called "proper challenges" Pep apparently has to take to prove himself to the point he was considered even more finished than Mourinho until he returned to Real.

To be honest I questioned putting Ancelotti in that post. He's probably closer to Guardiola, whereas the others I mentioned are undoubted.

 

[kaiser1]

He's great at getting good players playing well, no doubt. What the greatest coaches do is get average players playing well. He's never even attempted that. The closest was City when he first joined, and he failed.

Put it another way. There are discussions all over the world like this one, some people proclaiming his greatness and others questioning it. Do you think anybody questions Sir Alex? Or Rinus Michels? Of course not. The true greats are unanimous.

Ferguson never challenged himself outside British football plus Ferguson won a measly 2 CL in over 20 seasons

Rinus Mitchell I don't know but I'm sure someone is somewhere raising questions

 

[Zehner]

He's great at getting good players playing well, no doubt. What the greatest coaches do is get average players playing well. He's never even attempted that. The closest was City when he first joined, and he failed.

Put it another way. There are discussions all over the world like this one, some people proclaiming his greatness and others questioning it. Do you think anybody questions Sir Alex? Or Rinus Michels? Of course not. The true greats are unanimous.

I think you're extrapolating from your information bubble to the broader audience.

Ferguson never challenged himself outside British football plus Ferguson won a measly 2 CL in over 20 seasons

Rinus Mitchell I don't know but I'm sure someone is somewhere raising questions

As far as I know, Michel had doubters who rather saw Cruyff as the genius behind total football than him.

 

[11101]

Ferguson never challenged himself outside British football plus Ferguson won a measly 2 CL in over 20 seasons

Rinus Mitchell I don't know but I'm sure someone is somewhere raising questions

Yeah, except noone actually says that.

 

[Bebestation]

People are saying the stuff about they said about messi not testing himself enough on Pep.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Pep now won the triple twice with Barcelona and City. I don't remember any other coach has done the same.

 

[Gehrman]

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.

Beating 2010-2011 Barca was the pinnacle. Ole gunnar Solskjær had peps number on quite a few occasions with a bang average side.

 

[11101]

People are saying the stuff about they said about messi not testing himself enough on Pep.

But then Messi went and did that when he won himself a World Cup.

 

[Gehrman]

For me its not about Guardiola proving he can he be the underdog. Its simply proving that he can dominate on a even playing field. Seeing off Klopp's liverpool or Arsenal this year is nothing like that. Once Mourinho won La liga he fecked off to another dominant team in the league while Fergie ultimately defeated all his opposition in England. Its fair enough to feel that Fergie should have won more cl's but if he had spent money in the same stratosphere i think he would.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Anyway, I think part of the reason Pep never has to deal with sticking with underperforming players etc. is that he knows what he's doing and how to integrate players in his system. He doesn't have City buy Sancho and then has no idea what kind of player he is. He knows exactly what he needs and how to utilize it. And he has the authority to leave players on the bench if need be since they know he's the best in the business.

This is blatantly not true, though. There's several players he's signed and just stopped using without it having an impact on him or the club's finances. Exactly what @Mockney said, it's not a level playing field, he's playing with cheat codes.

 

[Zen86]

That's what happens when you create the greatest side of all time in his first job.

And yes create not inherit, he took over a side that finished double figure points behind Villarreal.

He hardly took over a ready made set up at City either, in 15/16 their points haul from mid September onwards was marginally better than ours.

Bayern he did take over a treble team but that in itself brings its unique challenges, ask Rafa.

He didn’t create that Barca team, unless you think the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Messi, Alves, Pique, and the rest would have amounted to little had it not been for Pep.

Barcelona were a team that had achieved recent success after re-emerging as a power during the Rijkaard era. They were not a club that had languished mid table before he arrived. They were very well stocked and had a very talented crop of players coming through.

The same goes for that City side. They had won several titles in the years prior to Pep arriving and had spent big prior to him arriving, and spent even more afterwards.

He’s a good manager no doubt, but this notion that he’s a club builder turning water into wine is pretty laughable.

 

[Bearded One]

Agreed. Klopp’s teams punch above their weight, Pep’s teams deliver as they should.

The key point is that Pep has had teams of an unparalleled calibre to work with, which distorts any comparison.

Pep did not work with teams that are in space. He worked with clubs that are still existing and employing managers today the same way they were doing before he got the opportunity. The jury is out for any manager to take up the challenge and achieve the success he’s been able to produce. Klopp is going to be contending for Europa league glory next season. This is not down to City’s presence in the league and I wouldn’t consider that showing as punching above one’s weight.

But what else can we do? Unless there's a secret metric you have that quantifies this length and breadth stuff. It's a sensible idea, but not practical.

In my opinion, for a manager to be acknowledged as the undisputed greatest ever, there must be evidence that in every aspect of the job, he has to be at least as good as any other manager. Sometimes this is easily evidenced and other times, it's impossible.

Well said but if we only consider the highlights, we’d find a way to sentimentally judge our preferred manager over and above others because we would ignore the times when they didn’t do so well.

 

[Gehrman]

Well tbf Ronaldo joined a real Madrid that hadn't reached a championsleague semi final since 2003 and had pep's Barca as domestic rivals. Messi stayed at Barca even as they declined a bit. Pep joined bayern that had just won the treble and City with limitless resources in a league where the reigning champions were Leicester. I don't think the scale of challenges they've taken on are comparable

In the same window they bought Ronaldo they also bought Kaka(2nd highest fee in history at the time), Benzema and Xabi Alonso. No doubt Ronnie was the main the star but they went out their way to catch up with Barca and managed it quite well.

 

[vangagal]

No and feck him.

 

[Gehrman]

I partly agree that Pep is no manager. But that is true for Klopp as well - England was the only place in European football where the default structure featured this role. Which is why it is so hard to compare today's coaches with Fergie.

Anyway, I think part of the reason Pep never has to deal with sticking with underperforming players etc. is that he knows what he's doing and how to integrate players in his system. He doesn't have City buy Sancho and then has no idea what kind of player he is. He knows exactly what he needs and how to utilize it. And he has the authority to leave players on the bench if need be since they know he's the best in the business.

Which is why he can sign a player such as Akanji whose departure wasn't considered a loss for Dortmund and turn him into one of the best defenders in the world. So many players who joined City improved enormously. It is what he does, he provides players the ideal platforms to shine with his system.

Pep has also spent incredible amounts to find the right squad option. Its so different than the budget most managers have to work on. If a pep signing is a failure no problem, they have the funds officially and unofficially to keep investing untill pep has his favourite squad to compete for all trophies.

 

[adexkola]

There are discussions all over the world like this one, some people proclaiming his greatness and others questioning it.

This conversation does not happen off the internet, in knowledgeable circles

The vast majority of coaches and players and experts of the game acknowledge his status as one of the greatest coaches of the sport.

This conversation only happens on the Caf and on Twitter, and you'll notice the number of doubters in the latter shrunk after Saturday for some reason...

 

[Theonas]

He's great at getting good players playing well, no doubt. What the greatest coaches do is get average players playing well. He's never even attempted that. The closest was City when he first joined, and he failed.

Put it another way. There are discussions all over the world like this one, some people proclaiming his greatness and others questioning it. Do you think anybody questions Sir Alex? Or Rinus Michels? Of course not. The true greats are unanimous.

When they were active, they definitely were questioned. Ask most non United PL fans and they will tell you that Fergie had the FA in his pocket, refs were scared of him and he simply could poach the best players to weaken his rivals. It was all nonsense of course. It's after they retire and there is some distance that people stop being bitter and resentful. A better barometer usually is the footballing community; fellow managers and players. That segment usually has a consensus and it did with Fergie just like it does with Pep now. Fans are tribal and will apply any sort of mental gymnastic to vilify who they don't like.

 

[Gehrman]

This conversation does not happen off the internet, in knowledgeable circles

The vast majority of coaches and players and experts of the game acknowledge his status as one of the greatest coaches of the sport.

This conversation only happens on the Caf and on Twitter, and you'll notice the number of doubters in the latter shrunk after Saturday for some reason...

He's obviously one of the greatest. He deserves the moniker as the greatest luxury manager of all time. All of the rest have proven their ability without playing FM with cheat codes

 

[Dancfc]

He didn’t create that Barca team, unless you think the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, Messi, Alves, Pique, and the rest would have amounted to little had it not been for Pep.

Barcelona were a team that had achieved recent success after re-emerging as a power during the Rijkaard era. They were not a club that had languished mid table before he arrived. They were very well stocked and had a very talented crop of players coming through.

The same goes for that City side. They had won several titles in the years prior to Pep arriving and had spent big prior to him arriving, and spent even more afterwards.

He’s a good manager no doubt, but this notion that he’s a club builder turning water into wine is pretty laughable.

Their success two years prior was Ronaldinho, Eto'o and to a certain extent Deco driven, two of which were a pale shadow of the players they were in 2006 and players Pep quickly realised were done, so he didn't have the foundations of Rijkaards success atall.

Xavi wasn't considered a great player at that point and he was 28 not a kid, Iniesta had a decent season IIRC but wasn't in the conversation for the best in the world, Busquets was promoted by Pep and everyone thought he lost his mind playing him over Yaya and Keita especially after his early error Vs Atletico.

If someone can find me a post from the summer of 2008 that said (paraphrasing) "he's inheriting the greatest side ever he'll be okay" I'll concede the point, but with the possible exception of Messi not one of the players that exploded under him were considered even potentially a GOAT in their position back then let alone at the time.

 

[11101]

This conversation does not happen off the internet, in knowledgeable circles

The vast majority of coaches and players and experts of the game acknowledge his status as one of the greatest coaches of the sport.

This conversation only happens on the Caf and on Twitter, and you'll notice the number of doubters in the latter shrunk after Saturday for some reason...

Most ex players are just as prone to recency bias as anybody and its tough to call the likes of Merson and Garth Crooks knowledgeable. It serves them/their media bosses well to promote everything current as the greatest ever. When the charges are proven you watch them all change their tunes.

 

[Bearded One]

For me its not about Guardiola proving he can he be the underdog. Its simply proving that he can dominate on a even playing field. Seeing off Klopp's liverpool or Arsenal this year is nothing like that. Once Mourinho won La liga he fecked off to another dominant team in the league while Fergie ultimately defeated all his opposition in England. Its fair enough to feel that Fergie should have won more cl's but if he had spent money in the same stratosphere i think he would.

We all love an underdog story but success by the underdog team will need to be sustained to have a legitimate claim on the tag “best” else where do we put Ranieri’s Leicester or Di Matteo’s Chelsea? Conte won the almighty premier league in his first try but I wouldn’t consider him in the same bracket where I have Klopp. Pep is in such a unique situation because of the manner in which he dominated as a rookie manager. I wouldn’t hold it against him. Rather I’d have other managers sustain wins at the top whether they choose to do it with average clubs or the bigger ones.