But it's not insane, is it? It was what was necessary to get together a squad capable of achieving what he wanted to fo, no more no less.
No, because he isn't a manager in the same mould as Sir Alex. He has an entire team of directors and executives doing these things to help him. That's why he isn't the greatest manager ever in my eyes. No one is really because the job entails very different tasks and requirements from era to era and country to country. So again, no not at all, that's not Pep's doing. My argument is that he did well enough to earn the right to have elite teams accomodate him with their resources because he proved that he produces not only trophies, but a sustainable way of playing and winning year in year out. No one in his era earned that power and status because no one showed what he can do and that's why he is the best of his era. The other point is when you look at how his contemporaries speak of him and credit him and how much imprint he has on the way his teams play, I have to believe that coaching wise, he is the most influential coach since Cruyff and Sacchi. That combination makes him one of the best of all time and it's disingenius to discredit people like that.
That is not true. The team that broke the PL point record was basically Stones and Otamendi in Central defence
No I am not. I am saying the argument that his teams achieve what they do in terms of trophies and playing style only because he coaches ready made team who have a significant financial advantage over everybody else is silly. He coaches elite teams who have access to the highest resources, there are 6 or 7 of these in Europe right now. When you add his coaching ability to a smart, sustainable use of these elite resources, you get an all conquering elite side in the modern game. So it is to his credit plus that his directors were smart enough to accomodate him and his requirements but then again, he earned that trust because he showed what he can deliver when trusted to devise a structure around him. Other managers don't get the same trust and investment in their ideas because they haven't proved what he did on the football pitch where smart and experience football can make these judgments.
It looks like he’s saying that City being well managed may have something to do with their *checks notes* Manager. Obviously Pep is not their only employee and they have top tier individuals in every department of the club. But it’s kind of disingenuous to suggest that Pep is responsible for any failures but none of the successes.
its funny how everyone ignores the dodgy parts of his success. would he have been as dominant with Barcelona without the refs?
I agree.
Agreed
The implicit argument here is that Guardiola has no influence on the players' performances. They perform largely on their own and the real challenge is to find the good ones. People who think he's a great manager will obviously disagree.
Exactly! It's a cultural difference and a very old debate. The British way of football management has relied mostly on the art of selecting the players and providing them with the best environment to do what they do best. Shankly, Paisley and Clough have famous quotes with some of their players on how they're not going to teach them how to play when they bought them. It's where someone like Roy Keane and most British pundits come from when they mostly comment on the quality of recruitment and individual performances. In the continent, Italian, Dutch, Spanish and German coaches have gone into much more detail into controlling what the players do and how they move. This has at least some part to do with the fact they're usually head coaches tasked with that specific assignment, and not managers supervising all club operations.
Other managers have had the opportunities he got. Their names should also be mentioned alongside his. The underdog stories of Jose are great but when you consider recency he’s no where near that level because the tactics that worked 20 years back no longer do at the highest levels.
What are you on about, he inherited a team that won CL only in 2006. Then had a young Messi with that amazing midfield, he knew all the squad too from playing with them. I'm sick of the myth of Pep, always had best chance of winning. Wherever he went, he's a really good manager but let's not say it was against the odds.
Yeah, fair enough. However, even assuming that it's all accurate, we're still talking money that all the richest teams could afford (unfortunately).
Source:
https://www.statista.com/chart/18001/transfer-balance-of-football-clubs-since-2008/
That comparison with Bayern, Madrid, Liverpool and even Barcelona that @Theonas points out at maybe should be reviewed.
I'm not really sure what the table even really wants to convey.
Liverpool would kill to have Phil Foden on their starting eleven?
A lot of Pep's signings are seen as underwhelming/overpriced at the time. It's only in hindsight that it suddenly obvious they were always going to be world beaters. The Club recently did a Combined 98/99 vs 22/23 XI video. Here's how it ended up:
I love how even the combined team has 4 United academy players (and of course 0 City’s).
That’s reflective of his current status. If he kept winning at RM, he’d probably still be there. Clubs for the most part make rational manager decisions because they pay hard money.
I think we use a lot of hindsight when judging. Rashford starts ahead of Grealish and Foden in the English set up. Sancho is a similar player. Pogba was supposed to do for us some of what Bernardo does for City. If Antony works, that wing would be on lock down. Maybe the difference is that we are not fulfilling the potential of players as much as they are. I’ll give another example. I know Casemiro has improved the side very much but I wouldn’t say categorically that Rodri has an overall advantage over him in term of ability. However the guy has serious claims for best DM in Europe now because his abilities have been and being milked to the benefit of City. It’s all about fulfillment of potentials so when you say, “they have this and that player”, maybe it’s not so much about their ability compared to fulfillment of their potential.
Why do you think that is? Why wouldn't anyone capable of financing a top squad trust him with one?
