I think the thread title is hyperbolic - my personal view. SAF is the GOAT but I think Pep is the best of the current bunch.
Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?
- Thread starter Irrational.
- Start date
As far as I’m aware this is only ever a discussion among United fans. You don’t really see anyone else banging the “He never did it at a smaller club” drum at Pep
Absolutely. But the issue is that other managers have to do this over several years because they don't have the resources Pep usually does, in which time other players fade away and create more gaps to fill. And before you say Pep has earned it, sure, but other managers have too and don't get this support.
Like Klopp had to buy Mane one year, Salah and Van Dijk the next, Alisson and Fabinho the season after. If he could buy five players with their prices in a single window he may very well have done what Pep has done in the PL. Especially given that he finished just a point behind Pep in 2 seasons with a much more restricted budget.
As you may well know the football landscape has changed completely since 99.
City have undeniably the best Academy in the country but the PL has overtaken Spain and Italy in having the most talented players and coaches plying their trade here and the pressure to win now is greater than ever which means top teams scour the world for players to help them do that.
You‘re comparing apples with pears drawing a direct comparison with United 99 and City 23 especially when your club has only produced Rashford who’s anywhere close to top class in many years.
The thing is he did do it at a smaller club - Man City
In all seriousness they said that on Second Captains podcast that it’s a small club with the resources of a big club, making it a unique and perfect situation for Guardiola. He doesn’t have to deal with the same outside noise crap he had at Barca and Bayern because they don’t have the same interest in them.
It's fine using hindsight in a disciplined and rigurous way. But you and others aren't doing that.
Xavi, Iniesta, and Puyol won the Euros, yes. So did Iker Casillas and Sergio Ramos (Real Madrid), Fernando Torres and Xabi Alonso (Liverpool), David Silva and Carlos Marchena (Valencia), Santi Cazorla, Marcos Senna, and Joan Capdevilla (Villareal). Where are the treble expectations for those clubs?
Let's apply the logic further. Manuel Pellegrini managed Villareal to 2nd place in La Liga and CL semifinals. But during his time at Villareal, he had, at various points, players who'd win the Euros, Diego Forlan, and Juan Roman Riquelme. Are his achievements there lessened because he had good players?
The same logic applies, especially to the highlighted example. Inter signed Diego Milito (2nd top goalscorer in Serie A previous season), Sneijder (who'd play a WC final that same season), Eto'o (who'd just won a treble), Thiago Motta, and Lucio, in that season where they won the treble. They were playing in a league with little competition, this was the years after Calciopoli. These were, in fact, very favorable conditions to win.
Hell, the main reason his treble is considered impressive is because they had to beat Guardiola!
Yeah but the managers are not magicians. You say what if Klopp bought all of these 5 players in one window but the reality is that he didnt even know he needed them in his squad. It was a process of identifying positions and the concrete names. For example Klopp didnt want to sign Salah, he was second or third choice for that position. Sometimes with transfers is all about luck. Guardiola signed Nolito and expected totally different outcome.. same from Bravo...
You keep saying this thing about consistency and length of career, but what does this even mean? I don't know how to quantify this in a way that Pep comes out ahead of SAF when talking about consistency throughout the length of their careers.
That's just silly in a discussion about greatest ever manager. Is that just to rule out managers like SAF who admittedly haven't won a single league match in over a decade?
Last edited:
Buying good players: terrible.
Not having to buy good players because they were already there: also terrible.
Not having to buy good players and not having to have bought them in the past because your academy is good: also terrible.
I'm just saying that if they both wanted to spend 200m in a single window, only one of them ever had the option to.
“Other managers” you say and you mention Klopp but ignore that there are jobs where getting third is a failure and you cannot do so twice in a row else you are swiftly out of the door. There are jobs that allow you to plan for years. 4 years is not a joke. Perhaps that’s his comfort zone. It’s not like anyone has put a gun on his head stopping him from trying his luck at the likes of Chelsea, Real Madrid or Bayern. Him being in Liverpool is purely a matter of choice on his part.
Also the idea that since he did well with smaller resources, he will surely do much better with his dream squad or resources - this doesn’t always happen and I have given a number of examples on this thread.
Whether it’s Mancini, Pellegrini, Flick, Nagglesman, Tuchel, Villanova, Tata Martino, Luis Enrique, Heynkes, Ancelloti, Kovac, etc. these guys have had the privilege to coach the teams that Pep oversaw.
Last edited:
Going back simply to point out how baffling this standard is.
What has Klopp achieved that no other manager has? Liverpool had won the league and the European Cup before him. Dortmund had won the league before him, they'd even won the European Cup. What has Mourinho achieved that no other manager has? Porto had won the European Cup before. Inter had won the European Cup before. These are some of the biggest clubs in their respective countries. What has Ancelotti achieved that no other manager has? Real Madrid and AC Milan had won plenty of European Cups, he's hardly breaking ground there. You could even extend this standard to Ferguson. Manchester United were a historically big team, they'd won league titles, they'd won European Cups. He wasn't breaking new ground by winning these titles!
I guess you haven’t read some of my previous posts. For the record I think SAF is the undisputed GOAT (although I have been accused of bias in doing so but I always give cogent reasons why that is the case when tasked to). However I’m saying that among the current bunch, Pep is the man. I also accused the thread title creator of hyperbole.
I hope that explains that.
My bad.
I just remembered a bit of our conversation from earlier in the thread and set about typing.Think it's intentionally phrased in a poor way to attract responses. It's working!
You're leaving out a lot of context too.
Klopp led Liverpool to their first PL title. Maybe you're not aware how much of a holy grail it was for them. And Dortmund were weeks from bankruptcy when he joined them. Winning the title with that club within 5-6 years was unbelievable.
You also probably remember the desperation for La Decima? Especially with years of getting knocked out in the RO16. That's why Ancelloti's achievement at Real was massive. Even Mourinho failed.
Speaking of whom, he led Inter to their first European Cup in 40 years. That's historic.
And the bit about Ferguson is just silly. We won more league titles under him than Utd had won before. Same with the CL.
Pep's CL win with City is obviously a massive achievement. He'll be in their history books just for that. Who's even denying that?
I'm guessing consistency means 'being consistent.'
Guardiola has been managing since 2008. His teams have won most league titles (losing only 3) and have finished below 2nd only once (in his first season at City). His clubs have reached the semifinals of the Champions League 10 times out of 14 (4x Barcelona 3x Bayern 3x City) and have played 4 CL finals, winning 3. That is a remarkably consistent record. The European part looked wobbly for a while with City but it has gotten closer to the mean in recent years.
You could quantify it by looking at average league placement. From the moment United first won a league title under Ferguson (1993) to the moment he left the club (2013), United's average position in the league is 1.52. From the moment Guardiola first started managing Barcelona to the current day, his clubs' average league position is 1.29.
The person who left out context is the person who claimed everything Guardiola's done has been done before.
Of course there is missing context, but that goes in every direction. There is missing context in the things you've just posted too, I can add additional detail that makes them less impressive.
You say he hasn't achieved a single thing any of the GOATS has. Has any other manager won a 3 peat league titles in 3 of the main European leagues? In fact, has anyone even done a 3 peat in at least 2 top European leagues? Has any other manager won 2 trebles? Has any other manager won a sextuple in their first year in managment?
You cannot deny him much longer.
He will need just 1 CL (to match Carlo), a few more league titles, and he will be clear of Fergie. Heck, one more treble alone and he will surge clear.
Surely one can't top three trebles, on top of the other incredible achievements.
And we haven't even mentioned his influence tactically as a coach, of which he is already clear.
I can understand arguing in favor of Ferguson due to operating with 'less' resources (sometimes), but what the hell is going on here:
What world are we living in where Conte and Mourinho do not spend money or inherit good players? Where a player of the quality of Fernandinho wasn't available to them in their squads? Come on.
What world are we living in where Conte and Mourinho do not spend money or inherit good players? Where a player of the quality of Fernandinho wasn't available to them in their squads? Come on.
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of your posts here about Guardiola.
But this I would say the Aberdeen job Ferguson did was entirely breaking new ground. They beat Real Madrid in a European final, and then even beat the CL winners in the Super Cup. The furthest they got in Europe in the past 37 years since Fergie? 3rd round of the Uefa Cup. Then he won 3 SPL titles with Aberdeen, a third team in a two-team league. Incredible achievement. They'd only ever won one league before that in their history, they've never won it since.
If you compare his record and put it up against Fergies best years as comparison then they are pretty equal. Fergie managed many more years than Pep has, and I dont think Pep will be that long a manager, so will probably never overhaul Fergies total number of trophies, nor will anyone else.
SAFs is a great but he's not the GOAT given his CL record. He should've done better than 2 CLs in 26 years given the teams he had.
I think it is telling that the criticism of Guardiola is so intangible. "We've never seen him coach bad players so we don't know whether he could elevate them to greatness". The underlying question here is, do his methods require world class players? So why don't you guys discuss this question but instead derive conclusions from his spending or his titles?
I mean, of course the individual class of his players often makes the difference. But his whole style revolves around players occupying the right positions in the build up and providing them with easy passing options. It is about doing the easy things right and not the outstanding. Most of this requires tactical discipline and stamina - attributes that aren't expensive or uncommon and probably even more prevalent in worse teams that rely on their work ethic.
Of course that wouldn't elevate them to the same heights as it did City's world class squad. But ihe still would make them punch above their weight to an extent no other coach delivers.
I mean, of course the individual class of his players often makes the difference. But his whole style revolves around players occupying the right positions in the build up and providing them with easy passing options. It is about doing the easy things right and not the outstanding. Most of this requires tactical discipline and stamina - attributes that aren't expensive or uncommon and probably even more prevalent in worse teams that rely on their work ethic.
Of course that wouldn't elevate them to the same heights as it did City's world class squad. But ihe still would make them punch above their weight to an extent no other coach delivers.
Yep, and therefore mourinho's achievements at Chelsea aren't considered as great as what he did with Porto and inter, apart from the 15 goals conceded which was mental. But yes, operating with financial strength and the quality of players other sides in the league can't match then of course it impacts on just how great an achievement is considered to be
I didn't say they hadn't spent money ffs, i said they hadn't inherited a team that were capable of a title challenge and then spent a billion in 7 years. Pep had one season in his career where he didn't have the strongest team in thr league, he finished 3rd. That should tell you that he doesn't generally get players performing significantly above their level. Yes when he has world class players in every position he can create a dominating brand of football, but when he lacks that he doesn't do as well
I think it's because the argument has shifted over time.
His first successful managerial stint was at Barcelona. A lot was made about the club's philosophy, their style of play, the large number of academy players that were all trained in this specific way of playing. There was a legitimate question there: can Guardiola achieve this kind of domination without unique, once-in-a-lifetime players who've been raised to play this way since they were teenagers?
But we now have an answer to the question. Unfortunately, the answer is "yes."
So then people have retreated to the far weaker argument that you need "world class" players, which requires 1) overrating City's squad, and 2) underrating everyone else's squad.
Mourinho and Conte have never held a job for anywhere close to 7 years so how exactly do you expect them to spend money in 7 years?
So what's your point? A billion in 7 years is totally normal and doesn't offer any advantages whatsoever, and other managers would have been given the same if they'd spent 7 years at their club
How is this even a debate? Of course he isn’t the best manager of all time, he mightn’t even be in the top 5. A more serious question would be is he the biggest cheat of all time, that is something I’d like to discuss. What Pep has done with City isn’t on the same level as what Sir Alex did with United. Fergie winning the treble in 99 is like a man going into the biggest nightclub in the world and pulling the best looking and most wanted woman in there, bringing her home and giving her the night of her life. What Pep has done with City is like going into the most expensive brothel in the world, paying for the most expensive hooker, giving her the best you can but knowing full well she’s faking it and is only in it for the money. You can tell yourself you’ve just had sex with an attractive woman, sure, but deep down you know it’s not the same.
Yes, if a manager managed to hold onto the United job or the Chelsea job for the last 7 years they would have also spent a billion. This is not even debatable.
Conte took over a squad that won the league one year before his arrival, bought players for 400m during his two years and then got the sack. If he was better at his job he wouldn't have gotten the sack.
I think this "coping mechanism" is indeed a factor, especially for those who (want to) see Ferguson as the best ever or begrudge Guardiola for other reasons. But I also believe that there are many who genuinely think that Guardiola's system requires world class players to work out and in my perspective this is a much more interesting discussion.
Well United would still be a bit less than pep, but surely you can't try and ignore the difference between spending a billion with City's structure and spending a billion under Woodward or Boehly. So many of pep's acolytes in this thread seem to think this is some massive gotcha. "Oh other teams have spent money badly, that means spending money well isn't important to winning"
I think it comes down to individual preference, to state the obvious. For me, he’s the most effective manager I’ve witnessed in my time watching Football, he’s got football down to an exact science which gives his teams a huge statistical advantage to win games and therefore trophies.
The thing that favours Mourinho and Sir Alex in this debate is their ability to start from scratch and to work within the confines of a smaller club. Mourinho’s success with Porto to me is criminally underrated in recent times due in part to a slight downward career trajectory in terms of the levels he’s managed at lately. For Sir Alex, what he achieved with Aberdeen, and in later years, the post Ronaldo years from 2009-13 is a true testament to his ability to get the absolute maximum potential from players a lot of fans deemed ‘not United quality’.
I’d have Fergie at the top of my list purely based on his ability to identify when a squad needed to be recycled and how to go about bringing in a new crop of players while maintaining a style of play. For a manager to oversee 3 maybe 4 squad rebuilds and every one of them be successful in their own right is nothing short of sensational, particularly when you consider how the landscape of football changes overtime and renders previously successful managers like the above mentioned Mourinho, on the fringes of being considered an ‘elite’ manager. For Ferguson to maintain a standard of success over the length of time he did is something I don’t believe we’ll ever witness again in the modern game.
1. Sir Alex
2. Mourinho
3. Guardiola
The thing that favours Mourinho and Sir Alex in this debate is their ability to start from scratch and to work within the confines of a smaller club. Mourinho’s success with Porto to me is criminally underrated in recent times due in part to a slight downward career trajectory in terms of the levels he’s managed at lately. For Sir Alex, what he achieved with Aberdeen, and in later years, the post Ronaldo years from 2009-13 is a true testament to his ability to get the absolute maximum potential from players a lot of fans deemed ‘not United quality’.
I’d have Fergie at the top of my list purely based on his ability to identify when a squad needed to be recycled and how to go about bringing in a new crop of players while maintaining a style of play. For a manager to oversee 3 maybe 4 squad rebuilds and every one of them be successful in their own right is nothing short of sensational, particularly when you consider how the landscape of football changes overtime and renders previously successful managers like the above mentioned Mourinho, on the fringes of being considered an ‘elite’ manager. For Ferguson to maintain a standard of success over the length of time he did is something I don’t believe we’ll ever witness again in the modern game.
1. Sir Alex
2. Mourinho
3. Guardiola
It would be interesting to see Klopp take over a club that is already the strongest, given near unlimited backing for 7 years and see if he could be more successful than pep or the others. Not that Liverpool is poor but he turned them into a top 2 side in world for a few years without unlimited funds.
No one has ever said that being able to buy players confers no advantages.
This is City's squad in the season before Guardiola took over, sorted by minutes. The only player still at the club is Kevin De Bruyne, who is 31. Most of the squad is retired or no longer playing football at the top level, except Raheem Sterling who is at Chelsea.
This is City's squad in the season when they got 100 points. 11 of the 21 players who got substantial minutes have already left the club.
The myth is that Guardiola is using City's enormous resources to quickly fix failed transfers and to remove anyone he doesn't think is good enough. The reality is much closer to: City is using its enormous resources to replace retiring players and/or those who voluntarily leave the club.
This is quite easily the most spot on analogy. The bald-fraud!
He spent 500m in the first 2 seasons
Aberdeen and Porto aren't really comparable.
Porto are the 2nd most successful Portuguese club and had won the European Cup before Mourinho. They've won 12 league titles in the 21st century.
Exactly. and that's the spend we know about.
If allowed the continued unlimited funds that Pep received I think Mancini would've been a successful as Pep at City.