Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[CoopersDream]

People underestimate how bad a state we were in by 2014, years of underinvestment by the Glazers meant we needed a whole new first XI in every position apart from goalkeeper. We've been spending money but it's entirely different buying one or two players and slotting them into a successful team than trying to do wholesale rebuilds every couple of years

Sure, we were in a bad state in 2014. But, I would think that if we got Pep. let's say in 2013, we would have held onto him even if he didn't deliver trophies the first few years. Because, let's face it, there's no way to go but down if you get rid of him. Let's say we would have had him for (at least) five years, spending like our managers at the time did, why wouldn't he have assembled a pretty good squad by the time we were gonna start the 17-18 campaign? I mean, we did spend 750m in that time. Who knows, maybe Woodward and the gang would have made it impossible for him to succeed, but in terms of actual funding there would be no reason for him not to succeed.

 

[Dancfc]

I admit that statement was a bit over the top. Still think he's got a better success rate than most other managers because it is easier for players to find their role when there's so much structure and organization. Plus City hasn't actually spent significantly more than many other clubs at the top, namely Barca, PSG, United and Chelsea.

Yep. If us and United especially used our funds of the last decade wiser and with a bit more structure we'd have at the very least challenged them.

Said on another thread but City's dominance is just as much on us all as it is them, in recent years clubs have acted like there's four winners (for example look at how Arsenal's title collapse is getting little scrutiny), even us under Roman were starting to get to that point in the later years.

 

[Care_de_Bobo]

Pep would have won 2-3 leagues here with the same money. He would have got rid of the players who couldn't play football, and got in ball-players. In a year, his team would have been the exact same style as every team he manages.

I think you're missing a pretty important difference here. The Glazers only spend money when they might otherwise miss out on top 4. Mourinho got us up to second and instead of building on that we ended up with just Fred. City's owners didn't settle for that.

City's owners are the difference makers here, not Pep. They won titles before him and they'll win titles after he's gone. I'm sure Mancini or Pellegrini would have won a CL eventually, but they were never going to be given 7 years and unlimited funds to donit.

The level of competition has deteriorated in Europe and there was a winter World Cup which would of course give the team with the most depth an advantage. Those are the real reason Pep's finally got his hands on another European trophy, not because City have improved so much.

I'm sure that someone will reply saying that Bayern and Real are as good as ever, but their form in the league says otherwise. If he was such a great tactician City wouldn't have been outplayed by Inter the way they were, even after going a goal up they never exerted any kind of control and were bailed out by Lukaku being Lukaku.

 

[jm99]

Sure, we were in a bad state in 2014. But, I would think that if we got Pep. let's say in 2013, we would have held onto him even if he didn't deliver trophies the first few years. Because, let's face it, there's no way to go but down if you get rid of him. Let's say we would have had him for (at least) five years, spending like our managers at the time did, why wouldn't he have assembled a pretty good squad by the time we were gonna start the 17-18 campaign? I mean, we did spend 750m in that time. Who knows, maybe Woodward and the gang would have made it impossible for him to succeed, but in terms of actual funding there would be no reason for him not to succeed.

Well Pep took over a city side that already had aguero, David Silva, kompany, de bruyne, fernandinho and others spent 200m his first window and finished 3rd and only after spending another 300m did he win a title. Taking over our side, weaker in every position than city, I don't know if 750m would have been enough

 

[Bearded One]

It’s a myth that Pep is working with the best players at City. Apart from Haaland (this season) and De Bruyne I don’t see any massive difference between what they have and what other too epl teams have. Bernardo and Fabinho were in the same Monaco team. Rodri and Partey were in the same Atletico team, Foden and Grealish do not start ahead of Rashford and Saka in the national team. Mahrez and Kante were in the same team before, Gundogan is not the man he was before his long lay out, Dias didn’t raise eyebrows, etc. No need to mention Ake, Akanji, Stones, etc. I think Pep knows what he wants and when he sees those potentials, they go for the player and try to actualize such potential.

 

[The Corinthian]

Absolutely (I remember reading a post from @Balu at the time going into more detail). It was like they funneled the disappointment of the previous season (losing the Bundesliga to Klopp again, AND losing the CL final AT THEIR OWN STADIUM to probably (look away @WeePat) the worst winner in the last 11 years) into every game that season. People look at the Barcelona tie as proof but honestly I prefer the Bayern - Juventus ties, where they simply swatted away a strong Italian side without breaking a sweat.

And what is annoying (well not annoying, just predictable) is that people take that outlier season from Heynekes and treat it like the summary of his tenure at Bayern, not the high mark of 2 seasons where he Leverkusen'ed the first.

I think you've kinda answered your own statement there. They got to two finals in a row, and they really should have won the tie vs Chelsea who literally lucked their way to one of the flukiest CL wins anyone has seen.

They were well off the pace in the league but they had finished 3rd the year before under LvG. That being said, it's a phenomenal job he did (Heynckes) in his second season.

 

[CoopersDream]

Well Pep took over a city side that already had aguero, David Silva, kompany, de bruyne, fernandinho and others spent 200m his first window and finished 3rd and only after spending another 300m did he win a title. Taking over our side, weaker in every position than city, I don't know if 750m would have been enough

It's true that he spent 200m the first summer, and another 250m the second summer (Laporte joined in the winter window). But one of the acquisitions got long time injured after a couple of games (missed the whole season, more or less), so with about 400m of acquisitions he went on to win 19 straight PL games in incredible fashion, the most dominant PL side ever. There's literally no reason to believe he couldn'tat least have crafted a great side if he got a five years, with the resources we provided our managers, if the club itself was competent enough to make the right signings. Absolutely no reason whatsoever.

 

[The Corinthian]

I admit that statement was a bit over the top. Still think he's got a better success rate than most other managers because it is easier for players to find their role when there's so much structure and organization. Plus City hasn't actually spent significantly more than many other clubs at the top, namely Barca, PSG, United and Chelsea.

City have spent £2bn since the takeover in 2008. Over £1bn of that has come under Pep's tenure specifically.

 

[Bearded One]

Well Pep took over a city side that already had aguero, David Silva, kompany, de bruyne, fernandinho and others spent 200m his first window and finished 3rd and only after spending another 300m did he win a title. Taking over our side, weaker in every position than city, I don't know if 750m would have been enough

Why wouldn’t 750m be enough though. We only finished below them by goal difference which would tell you the state of the club. It is said that you are only as good as your current form. If I recall a Kompany and Aguero used to spend more time on the treatment table than on the pitch. David Silva, Yaya and co were ageing and in fact they had the oldest set of players in the league.

 

[jm99]

It's true that he spent 200m the first summer, and another 250m the second summer (Laporte joined in the winter window). But one of the acquisitions got long time injured after a couple of games (missed the whole season, more or less), so with about 400m of acquisitions he went on to win 19 straight PL games in incredible fashion, the most dominant PL side ever. There's literally no reason to believe he couldn'tat least have crafted a great side if he got a five years, with the resources we provided our managers, if the club itself was competent enough to make the right signings. Absolutely no reason whatsoever.

But between de bruyne, aguero, kompany zabaleta, toure, David Silva, fernandinho and others, he came into a squad that by 2016 money, would have cost abiut 400m themselves. So you're talking about a base of 400m worth of players and 400m of acquisitions

 

[Zen86]

Exactly but it's been used against him a lot since.

Would they have been shit players without him? No, but bar Messi would they have reached the sheer level they did (undebatably the best in their area)? In my opinion also no.

While Spain did win Euro 2008 it was (correct me if I'm wrong) done with only two Barca players and a more direct style with Villa especially causing havoc. It wasn't until 2010 we saw the Pep/Barca effect truly on that team aswell.

That Spain team were certainly better to watch and a bit more direct, but the possession heavy foundation was there and already embedded in a whole generation of players coming through the ranks. It wasn’t something Pep invented, but he sure did ride the wave of it.

And those players would’ve reached those heights regardless. The ability was there, but the key factor was the compatibility between them as they all matured, that’s what mattered. To say Pep made them what they were is rather diminutising to the players and a bit cultish to suggest. They coped just fine after Pep left.

 

[The Corinthian]

How much did Man Utd 1999 treble winners cost?
There are obviously a lot of facets to consider to compare squad valuations over time. We have decided the best way would be to round up the entire cost of the 1999 Man Utd squad in terms of how much the club spent, removing the players who played less than 10 games in all competitions, and then adjusting the total sum for inflation to today. For City we have done the same, without adjusting for inflation.


Man Utd 1998/98
Peter Schmeichel - £500k
Gary Neville - free
Denis Irwin - £625k
Ronny Johnsen - £1.2m
Jaap Stam- £10.6m
David Beckham - free
Nicky Buttt - free
Andy Cole - £7m
Teddy Sheringham - £3.5m
Ryan Giggs - free
Phil Neville - free
Jesper Blomqvist - £4.4m
Roy Keane £3.75 m
Paul Scholes - free
Dwight Yorke - £12.6 m
Ole Gunnar Solskaer - £1.5m
Henning Berg - £5m
Wes Brown - free
Total: £50.7m
Adjusted for inflation: £89.8m

Man City 2022/23
Ederson - £35m
Erling Haaland - £51m
Ruben Dias - £61m
Nathan Ake - £41m
John Stones - £47.5m
Aymeric Laporte £57m
Jack Grealish - £100m
Cole Palmer - free
Bernado Silva - £43.5 m
Manuel Akanji - £15m
Kyle Walker - £45m
Julian Alvarez - £14m
Rodri - £62m
Ilkay Gundogan - £20m
Kevin De Bruyne - £55m
Phil Foden - free
Riyad Mahrez - £60m
Kevin De Bruyne - £55m
Rico Lewis - free
Total: £762m

 

[jm99]

Why wouldn’t 750m be enough though. We only finished below them by goal difference which would tell you the state of the club. It is said that you are only as good as your current form. If I recall a Kompany and Aguero used to spend more time on the treatment table than on the pitch. David Silva, Yaya and co were ageing and in fact they had the oldest set of players in the league.

Well obviously because the team was on its last legs, no matter if it won the title, we needed replacements in every single position. Van persie was playing in Turkey within abiut 2 years, Rooney was stinking the place up under van goal, evra was done, ferdinand was done, vidic wad done, Scholes retired, giggs retired, and ferguson was getting an awful lot out of some mediocre players. Apart from de gea we didn't have any players with long term prospects in the side.

 

[Bearded One]

City have spent £2bn since the takeover in 2008. Over £1bn of that has come under Pep's tenure specifically.

That figure includes money they received from sale of players and if you look at our own net spend and that of a couple other clubs, it’s obvious that they have not done anything that was out of each for everybody. In terms of net spend I think we have spent about double the amount they have spent meaning that they have invested new money into their squad in a manner that is being done in the league. Our squads are night and day in comparison by the way.

 

[Massive Spanner]

How much did Man Utd 1999 treble winners cost?
There are obviously a lot of facets to consider to compare squad valuations over time. We have decided the best way would be to round up the entire cost of the 1999 Man Utd squad in terms of how much the club spent, removing the players who played less than 10 games in all competitions, and then adjusting the total sum for inflation to today. For City we have done the same, without adjusting for inflation.


Man Utd 1998/98
Peter Schmeichel - £500k
Gary Neville - free
Denis Irwin - £625k
Ronny Johnsen - £1.2m
Jaap Stam- £10.6m
David Beckham - free
Nicky Buttt - free
Andy Cole - £7m
Teddy Sheringham - £3.5m
Ryan Giggs - free
Phil Neville - free
Jesper Blomqvist - £4.4m
Roy Keane £3.75 m
Paul Scholes - free
Dwight Yorke - £12.6 m
Ole Gunnar Solskaer - £1.5m
Henning Berg - £5m
Wes Brown - free
Total: £50.7m
Adjusted for inflation: £89.8m

Man City 2022/23
Ederson - £35m
Erling Haaland - £51m
Ruben Dias - £61m
Nathan Ake - £41m
John Stones - £47.5m
Aymeric Laporte £57m
Jack Grealish - £100m
Cole Palmer - free
Bernado Silva - £43.5 m
Manuel Akanji - £15m
Kyle Walker - £45m
Julian Alvarez - £14m
Rodri - £62m
Ilkay Gundogan - £20m
Kevin De Bruyne - £55m
Phil Foden - free
Riyad Mahrez - £60m
Kevin De Bruyne - £55m
Rico Lewis - free
Total: £762m

Interesting for sure but I think something far more valid would be the cost of each squad relative to their main rivals in the league and in the CL itself. I imagine it’s not remotely as cut and dry then? Ours, Arsenals, Liverpools squads were all probably similarly expensive.

I wonder was there any PL team in 99 with a squad as expensive as Utds? No doubt the Italians were big spenders back then for sure.

 

[The Corinthian]

That figure includes money they received from sale of players and if you look at our own net spend and that of a couple other clubs, it’s obvious that they have not done anything that was out of each for everybody. In terms of net spend I think we have spent about double the amount they have spent meaning that they have invested new money into their squad in a manner that is being done in the league. Our squads are night and day in comparison by the way.

The figures I posted are gross spend, not net.

Net spend is such a dumb way to move the goalposts of the argument anyway. Why would it matter how good you are at selling? The point is that they're able to just spend again, and again, and again, if a player doesn't work out.

 

[Bearded One]

Well obviously because the team was on its last legs, no matter if it won the title, we needed replacements in every single position. Van persie was playing in Turkey within abiut 2 years, Rooney was stinking the place up under van goal, evra was done, ferdinand was done, vidic wad done, Scholes retired, giggs retired, and ferguson was getting an awful lot out of some mediocre players. Apart from de gea we didn't have any players with long term prospects in the side.

No doubt we needed massive investment but I’m just pointing out the fact that their latest league showing was more indicative of their state than some of the big names they had.

 

[Bearded One]

The figures I posted are gross spend, not net.

Net spend is such a dumb way to move the goalposts of the argument anyway. Why would it matter how good you are at selling? The point is that they're able to just spend again, and again, and again, if a player doesn't work out.

I don’t think net spend is useless. If you could just sell any player for any sum I’m sure many of our players that we don’t want would be out of the books right now. When you sell a player for good money you actually loose some abilities that the player offers perhaps for a better alternative. If I sell a player for 30m and I go for another one for 60m, it’s okay to report that I spent 90m gross but if I want to speak to how much new money I had to dole out, that would be 60 minus 30 = 30m.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

That 'adjustment for inflation' is dubious.

Jaap Stam was the most expensive defender in the world at the time at 10m. The current most expensive defender cost 78m.

Claiming United's spend is barely doubled after adjusting for inflation is not giving any kind of credible picture of the changes in football since then.

 

[Gehrman]

If Pep had spent that amount of money without winning the cl at Madrid or Bayern he would be long gone rather the time he was given.

 

[CoopersDream]

But between de bruyne, aguero, kompany zabaleta, toure, David Silva, fernandinho and others, he came into a squad that by 2016 money, would have cost abiut 400m themselves. So you're talking about a base of 400m worth of players and 400m of acquisitions

400m + 400m is 800m, I gave him a 750m budget at United. I agree that he probably wouldn't have managed to have as great a squad at United as City with that money spent, but it's still enough for buying 10 50m players and another 7 35m players, which were still big fees up until 2017. I still don't understand why he wouldn't be able to assemble a good team with that kind of investment, with that amount of players bought.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Barca 08 didn’t lose a single game in the CL that season until they met us.

Admittedly we were also by far the best team they had met - and I believe they would have lost to all the other English CL teams that season as well as they were all very good - but a side that reaches a CL semi unbeaten can’t just be an average side, especially not a side with as many good/great players as they had.

Barcelona finished the league season with 67 points. That is their 4th worst tally in the 21st century, and worse than all but one Real Madrid tally in the same period. They were not very good.

They were unbeaten in the CL because they played Celtic and Schalke in the knockouts.

 

[jm99]

400m + 400m is 800m, I gave him a 750m budget at United. I agree that he probably wouldn't have managed to have as great a squad at United as City with that money spent, but it's still enough for buying 10 50m players and another 7 35m players, which were still big fees up until 2017. I still don't understand why he wouldn't be able to assemble a good team with that kind of investment, with that amount of players bought.

Well I'd say it's more difficult to add players to a strong, settled side, than it is to totally rebuild a team from scratch. City also had a much better set up and structure than we have

 

[FriedClams]

Until Pep goes to a smaller team and has them winning or competing in Europe, it'll always be SAF. It's an absolute cringe to suggest otherwise FFS.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Why would it matter how good you are at selling? The point is that they're able to just spend again, and again, and again, if a player doesn't work out.

Being good at selling suggests that players rarely "don't work out."

There have been transfers like John Stones and Nathan Ake that people have claimed "didn't work out", yet City just won a CL final with those guys as starters.

The number of legitimately 'failed' transfers during Pep's stint is minuscule.

 

[OleTheGreat]

Pep is a great coach, No doubt! Sir Alex is a legend though. Forget everything he did at Man United, all the acomplishments at Aberdeen surpasses those of Pep!

 

[Forest Red]

How much did Man Utd 1999 treble winners cost?
There are obviously a lot of facets to consider to compare squad valuations over time. We have decided the best way would be to round up the entire cost of the 1999 Man Utd squad in terms of how much the club spent, removing the players who played less than 10 games in all competitions, and then adjusting the total sum for inflation to today. For City we have done the same, without adjusting for inflation.


Man Utd 1998/98
Peter Schmeichel - £500k
Gary Neville - free
Denis Irwin - £625k
Ronny Johnsen - £1.2m
Jaap Stam- £10.6m
David Beckham - free
Nicky Buttt - free
Andy Cole - £7m
Teddy Sheringham - £3.5m
Ryan Giggs - free
Phil Neville - free
Jesper Blomqvist - £4.4m
Roy Keane £3.75 m
Paul Scholes - free
Dwight Yorke - £12.6 m
Ole Gunnar Solskaer - £1.5m
Henning Berg - £5m
Wes Brown - free
Total: £50.7m
Adjusted for inflation: £89.8m

Man City 2022/23
Ederson - £35m
Erling Haaland - £51m
Ruben Dias - £61m
Nathan Ake - £41m
John Stones - £47.5m
Aymeric Laporte £57m
Jack Grealish - £100m
Cole Palmer - free
Bernado Silva - £43.5 m
Manuel Akanji - £15m
Kyle Walker - £45m
Julian Alvarez - £14m
Rodri - £62m
Ilkay Gundogan - £20m
Kevin De Bruyne - £55m
Phil Foden - free
Riyad Mahrez - £60m
Kevin De Bruyne - £55m
Rico Lewis - free
Total: £762m

I don’t think that is a valid comparison as United benefited from a once in a generation academy cohort. How much would it have cost United to buy Giggs, Scholes and Beckham?

 

[Gehrman]

I don’t think that is a valid comparison as United benefited from a once in a generation academy cohort. How much would it have cost United to buy Giggs, Scholes and Beckham?

Dunno, one of Fergies lasting legacies was the trusting youth enough to move on superstars for the class of 92 to take over.

 

[HookedOnAPhelan]

I don’t think that is a valid comparison as United benefited from a once in a generation academy cohort. How much would it have cost United to buy Giggs, Scholes and Beckham?

Interesting that you’re using Co92 as an argument against us.

 

[Forest Red]

Dunno, one of Fergies lasting legacies was the trusting youth enough to move on superstars the class of 92 to take over.

The point of the post was a comparison of money spent to win the treble. By 1999 the class of 92 were in their mid 20’s and international players.

 

[Forest Red]

Interesting that you’re using Co92 as an argument against us.

No just the point about comparing the cost of the squads In that post.

 

[HookedOnAPhelan]

No just the point about comparing the cost of the squads In that post.

Well yeah of course our squad is going to be costing less, and that is partly because we produced such a big chunk of it through our own academy. Which was precisely the point to begin with.

 

[Gehrman]

The point of the post was a comparison of money spent to win the treble. By 1999 the class of 92 were in their mid 20’s and international players.

What's the point got to with 99? My point was Fergie sold many of his superstars that ended uniteds drought of major honours for decades. Despite that he sold them and went on to win everything with that spine of 92.

 

[Mr.Fantastic]

It’s a myth that Pep is working with the best players at City. Apart from Haaland (this season) and De Bruyne I don’t see any massive difference between what they have and what other too epl teams have. Bernardo and Fabinho were in the same Monaco team. Rodri and Partey were in the same Atletico team, Foden and Grealish do not start ahead of Rashford and Saka in the national team. Mahrez and Kante were in the same team before, Gundogan is not the man he was before his long lay out, Dias didn’t raise eyebrows, etc. No need to mention Ake, Akanji, Stones, etc. I think Pep knows what he wants and when he sees those potentials, they go for the player and try to actualize such potential.

Easily the best squad in Premiership / Europe at this point. No way he wins Premiership with United let alone CL.

 

[11101]

The question is why do you doubt he would have a similar impact on an underdog team? Just because we haven't seen him coaching one? What reasons are there to doubt his methods would work with other teams as well?

Because his methods require very specific players. Without them he struggles; see City in the early days. He cant adapt, his Plan B is to go out and buy more players who fit his Plan A. He would not have that luxury at an underdog team.

 

[united_99]

Barcelona finished the league season with 67 points. That is their 4th worst tally in the 21st century, and worse than all but one Real Madrid tally in the same period. They were not very good.

They were unbeaten in the CL because they played Celtic and Schalke in the knockouts.

And? They still finished 3rd in La Liga and remained unbeaten in the CL until the semis. I already said we were by far the best team they faced. Still, I would like to know how many teams finished at least 3rd in their league and remained unbeaten until CL semis, easy run or not. If only they had played a proper team like Sheriff instead of Lyon, Celtic or Schalke.
Barca 08 were no world beaters but people are acting as if they were a team which occasionally qualified for the CL whereas in reality they won the league and CL in 2006 and reached the CL semi in 2008.

 

[Zehner]

Because his methods require very specific players. Without them he struggles; see City in the early days. He cant adapt, his Plan B is to go out and buy more players who fit his Plan A. He would not have that luxury at an underdog team.

That's a theory. We've seen similar systems being implemented by teams with lesser quality, this season e. g. Napoli.

Most things Guardiola coaches don't require the best players. You don't need to be worldclass to occupy the right positions, counterpress, make the required runs, etc. It is as much about what you do when you don't have the ball as it is when you have it.

 

[11101]

That's a theory. We've seen similar systems being implemented by teams with lesser quality, this season e. g. Napoli.

Most things Guardiola coaches don't require the best players. You don't need to be worldclass to occupy the right positions, counterpress, make the required runs, etc. It is as much about what you do when you don't have the ball as it is when you have it.

The huge turnover of players at City shows that he requires specific players and he either cant, or doesn't bother, trying to coach the others. Just gets rid and buys somebody new. 50 players in 7 years, almost a whole new team every summer. You can't do that anywhere other than City.

 

[The Corinthian]

I don’t think net spend is useless. If you could just sell any player for any sum I’m sure many of our players that we don’t want would be out of the books right now. When you sell a player for good money you actually loose some abilities that the player offers perhaps for a better alternative. If I sell a player for 30m and I go for another one for 60m, it’s okay to report that I spent 90m gross but if I want to speak to how much new money I had to dole out, that would be 60 minus 30 = 30m.

Your maths doesn't stack up - your net position is £30m, but your gross is £60m.

 

[surf]

As a coach and tactical innovator he is the best. A lot of younger coaches will follow his ideas. Having said that, he doesn't have the all-encompassing managerial and leadership role that Ferguson had. Different types of manager and hard to compare directly.

Can't wait for him to leave City though.