Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[glazed]

He's not even the best manager in the EPL. Klopp has achieved more with fewer resources. Winning Champions League with financially dominant teams is not that great an achievement.

At Barca he had prime Messi.

 

[Bearded One]

Klopp beat Bayern to 2 German leagues and took dortmund to a champions league final. He took Liverpool to a champions league final in his 2nd full seaosn and took them to 97 points and a champions league win in his 3rd full season having spent far less than pep and inheriting a side in far worse condition

These are highlights of his career and you will always be lenient in judging him when you mention things like “he took the club to the finals,” meaning that he did not win the trophy, right? I know how much you have used hindsight to suggest how great a team of players Pep had to work with at Barca, I just hope you have the same opinion about Sahin, Gotze, Lewandowski, Hummels, Marco Reus, Gundogan, Perisic, etc.

He won the title after his third season hence my point that he needs to build his teams slowly and steadily. He arrived at Liverpool in 2015 and won the UCL in 2018/19 season and the premier league in the 2019/20 season. At some clubs finishing second or getting 97 points may not be enough to save your head.

 

[Bearded One]

He's not even the best manager in the EPL. Klopp has achieved more with fewer resources. Winning Champions League with financially dominant teams is not that great an achievement.

At Barca he had prime Messi.

Achieve more? Which trophy has he achieved more? Winning the UCL and EPL at Liverpool once each doesn’t not shield a manger from getting judged about their current performances like loosing out of champions league place to rookie manager Arteta.

Klopp also had prime Lewandoeski, Marco Reus etc.

 

[Gentleman Jim]

But this is the point. Unless Foden / another academy talent is the best player in the world by this logic he will have no chance as City will just find someone slightly better or more experienced and pay whatever it takes to get him.
This topic started because someone posted the combined treble winning team which had 4 United academy players. Apart from them the argument you have in favour of Foden (x PL medals, CL medal, etc.) applies to some others as well for example Nicky Butt or Phil Neville. But like Foden they were not in the combined team, understandably.
I mean United could have also tried everything to get Nedved or Zidane and could have dropped a couple of (almost) as good academy players instead and then asked who would you have dropped for Zidane?
But I can only comment on what actually happened which is that your great academy talent Foden just played a side role last season. And he is similarly talented to Giggs/Scholes/Beckham and way more talented than G. Neville (the 4 players who were in the combined team). If he was of Darren Fletcher’s level we wouldn’t even be talking about him.

At the end we have been hearing for at least a decade about City’s incredible academy and indeed they are dominating at youth level. This however makes the end result even more damning. Basically it means if you want to start as an academy kid you need to be better than Foden. And even then we will most likely find someone who we like more.

So many inaccuracies here, where to start?
I'll save us both the trouble.
United played more Academy kids in 99 and 08 than City did in 23 which is to Pep's detriment. OK. Nothing else matters.
Bye.

 

[jm99]

These are highlights of his career and you will always be lenient in judging him when you mention things like “he took the club to the finals,” meaning that he did not win the trophy, right? I know how much you have used hindsight to suggest how great a team of players Pep had to work with at Barca, I just hope you have the same opinion about Sahin, Gotze, Lewandowski, Hummels, Marco Reus, Gundogan, Perisic, etc.

He won the title after his third season hence my point that he needs to build his teams slowly and steadily. He arrived at Liverpool in 2015 and won the UCL in 2018/19 season and the premier league in the 2019/20 season. At some clubs finishing second or getting 97 points may not be enough to save your head.

I wonder why so many United fans are desperately defending pep to the point you're trying to argue that what klopp did with dortmund or Liverpool wasn't a harder achievement than what guardiola has done with his 3 sides. I mean saying, gotten, reus never particularly performed that well outside those klopp teams. The great players at Barca played well even after pep left, maybe with the exception of pedro

 

[Bebestation]

Messi was lucky to have Guardiola just as much as he was lucky to have Messi.

Messi without the management of Guardiola & their success together wouldn’t be the GOAT.

Just as Messi was beautiful technically, Guardiola is beautiful tactically.

He is the GOAT manager to Messi being the Goat player.

 

[Bearded One]

I wonder why so many United fans are desperately defending pep to the point you're trying to argue that what klopp did with dortmund or Liverpool wasn't a harder achievement than what guardiola has done with his 3 sides. I mean saying, gotten, reus never particularly performed that well outside those klopp teams. The great players at Barca played well even after pep left, maybe with the exception of pedro

Because it all looks like an agenda against the man. I mean what has he done? He doesn’t spend but takes the risk and promotes his young lads over well established stars and we use hindsight to castigate the poor guy. He spends and we criticize him for that whilst being lenient on his contemporaries that also spent but never got close to him.

I wouldn’t say what Klopp did at Dortmund was harder than what Pep did at Barca for example. For one, they didn’t achieve the same thing. While one was able to get two domestic league wins and a couple of European finals, the other team actually defined a generation of football. They cannot be the same thing no matter how much you have disdain for the man in question. And lest I forget, I don’t know if you remember how highly rated Marco Reus was but man was a killer. He was the number one upcoming wide attackers in Europe till injuries finished him. The same can be said of Gundogan.

 

[jm99]

Messi was lucky to have Guardiola just as much as he was lucky to have Messi.

Messi without the management of Guardiola & their success together wouldn’t be the GOAT.

Just as Messi was beautiful technically, Guardiola is beautiful tactically.

He is the GOAT manager to Messi being the Goat player.

Utterly ridiculous. As long as Messi was at Barca they were scoring 85 plus goals a season even when he was 33, and as soon as he left they didn't break 70 goals in the next 2, above 85 was for about 13 seasons straight, when guardiola left, Barca set a points record the next season. Barca's performance and attacking waxed and waned along with Messi, as he declined and then left eventually so did their goalscoring ability, whereas without guardiola it kind of just kept ticking

 

[united_99]

So many inaccuracies here, where to start?
I'll save us both the trouble.
United played more Academy kids in 99 and 08 than City did in 23 which is to Pep's detriment. OK. Nothing else matters.
Bye.

You could have already saved us the trouble if you hadn’t been so defensive over an absolutely true statement: the number of academy starters in each treble winning team.

 

[jm99]

Because it all looks like an agenda against the man. I mean what has he done? He doesn’t spend but takes the risk and promotes his young lads over well established stars and we use hindsight to castigate the poor guy. He spends and we criticize him for that whilst being lenient on his contemporaries that also spent but never got close to him.

I wouldn’t say what Klopp did at Dortmund was harder than what Pep did at Barca for example. For one, they didn’t achieve the same thing. While one was able to get two domestic league wins and a couple of European finals, the other team actually defined a generation of football. They cannot be the same thing no matter how much you have disdain for the man in question. And lest I forget, I don’t know if you remember how highly rated Marco Reus was but man was a killer. He was the number one upcoming wide attackers in Europe till injuries finished him. The same can be said of Gundogan.

The idea he didnt spend at Barca is for the birds surely. Nearly 300m in 4 years at a time when that level of spending was not at all common in europe. In the same time period we spent about 130m. And we didn't have Messi, xavi, iniesta, and busquets for free

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The idea he didnt spend at Barca is for the birds surely. Nearly 300m in 4 years at a time when that level of spending was not at all common in europe. In the same time period we spent about 130m. And we didn't have Messi, xavi, iniesta, and busquets for free

Manchester United's starting 11 in both the 2009 and the 2011 Champions League finals cost more than Barcelona's.

Only 6 of 11 players in Barcelona's starting lineup cost any money: Villa (40m), Alves (35m), Abidal (15m), Mascherano (20m), Pique (5m).

Rooney's (37m) price is comparable to Villa's, Valencia (19m) cost almost the same as Mascherano, Carrick cost a bit less than Alves (27m). Ferdinand cost more than anyone (46m). Vidic and Evra together cost approximately the same as Pique and Abidal.

You also had Nani (25m) and Anderson (30m) on the bench, and famously did not include Berbatov (38m) in the squad.

The most expensive player on Barcelona's bench was Seydou Keita, who cost 14m. 4 of the 6 bench players were from the academy as well as 5 of the 11 starters.

 

[united_99]

Manchester United's starting 11 in both the 2009 and the 2011 Champions League finals cost more than Barcelona's.

Yes because as someone else had already pointed out you were counting the likes of Rio who was bought in 2002.
You will get an idea of United’s underinvestment in Fergie’s last few years just by comparing the total and net spend of Barca and United between 2008/09 and 2011/12 (the years Pep managed Barca).

 

[jm99]

Manchester United's starting 11 in both the 2009 and the 2011 Champions League finals cost more than Barcelona's.

Yeah tbh we looked like fools for not having the idea to have xavi, ineista, Messi and busquets come through our youth system. A real missed trick by fergie IMO

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Because it all looks like an agenda against the man. I mean what has he done? He doesn’t spend but takes the risk and promotes his young lads over well established stars and we use hindsight to castigate the poor guy. He spends and we criticize him for that whilst being lenient on his contemporaries that also spent but never got close to him.

The whole thing is very silly.

Why is everyone suddenly acting like Jurgen Klopp can take any random bunch of players and win trophies? It was a big deal how he needed time at Liverpool to get players that fit his style of play!

 

[Zehner]

Well he wasn't managing to reach the same 90 point plus seasons that have been pretty commonplace, he wasn't tterly dominant the way his sides often are, they didn't roll over every team in their path.

That his team wasn't as good/successful is obvious. But you said they didn't play like the typical Guardiola team. What do you mean with that precisely other than "less succesful"?

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Yeah tbh we looked like fools for not having the idea to have xavi, ineista, Messi and busquets come through our youth system. A real missed trick by fergie IMO

You can't make these arguments and then say that Alex Ferguson is the greatest manager on earth because he won a treble with great academy such as Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, David Beckham, etc. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If you want to complain about Guardiola's achievements at City and compare those to Guardiola then be my guest. But it makes no sense to try to pull this stunt on his time at Barcelona. It is the most ridiculous sour-grapes argument in the world.

 

[Bearded One]

The idea he didnt spend at Barca is for the birds surely. Nearly 300m in 4 years at a time when that level of spending was not at all common in europe. In the same time period we spent about 130m. And we didn't have Messi, xavi, iniesta, and busquets for free

I see you conveniently ignored the point I was making about Dortmund and Barca not achieving the same thing. In any case I meant that the majority of guys that pulled the strings during is reign were lads that cost next to nothing.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Yes because as someone else had already pointed out you were counting the likes of Rio who was bought in 2002.
You will get an idea of United’s underinvestment in Fergie’s last few years just by comparing the total and net spend of Barca and United between 2008/09 and 2011/12 (the years Pep managed Barca).

Rio Ferdinand counts because he was a player on the pitch, it doesn't matter one bit when he was purchased.

Real Madrid have 'low' spending in the last years, in fact in that graph people were posting earlier about City being the top spender, Real Madrid was nowhere on the list. We are not even in the top 10.

But I would hope that you and others do not take seriously the argument that we won the CL in 2022 or 2018 or whenever "without spending money." That spending a fortune on players doesn't matter because "it was a long time ago."

 

[GatoLoco]

I'm not really sure what the table even really wants to convey.

It's since 2008, so that's what, 14 years?

Then according to the table, United are spending 13m less per year than City in transfers, Chelsea are spending 23m less. Does that kind of money explain the difference in results? I doubt it.

(and this is ignoring the fact that City would, by necessity, need to spend more, because their 2008 squad would need to be replaced almost entirely)

Also, the fact that Real Madrid is not on this list suggests that the unit of measurement is perhaps not conveying the full reality of the situation.

There is no doubt Guardiola is an exceptional coach, probably the best of modern era.

And it's also true that Manchester United did very poorly given the circumstances as compared to City. Chelsea's and PSG's budgets were too comparable.

However one user said other European clubs have had the same resources to build similar squads to City's, but it's a "math over myth" (or "dato mata relato") case as far as it touches Bayern, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barcelona, Arsenal, Dortmund etc who are nowhere close in terms of net spend.

And that's not even mentioning a case like Mancini's who was being paid extra secretly into an offshore account, so God only knows how often the reproduced this formula for other acquisitions.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ly-paid-roberto-mancini175m-offshore-account/

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Also, to be frank, I'm not following this argument at all. How is it relevant to Pep Guardiola's achievements at Barcelona that Manchester United had underinvestment in the late 2010s? This is a thread about Pep Guardiola. It is not, as far as I'm aware, about whether Alex Ferguson did not receive enough investment in the late 2010s (he did not).

 

[united_99]

Rio Ferdinand counts because he was a player on the pitch, it doesn't matter one bit when he was purchased.

Real Madrid have 'low' spending in the last years, in fact in that graph people were posting earlier about City being the top spender, Real Madrid was nowhere on the list. We are not even in the top 10.

But I would hope that you and others do not take seriously the argument that we won the CL in 2022 or 2018 or whenever "without spending money."

Yes Rio would also count if he was still playing today, the fee would be the same but it would tell more about United’s absolute stupidity than the quality of their team.

And Madrid have been praised no end for their mostly non-Galactico low (net) spend approach in the last few years. I believe they don’t appear anywhere near the top spending tables nowadays.

 

[jm99]

You can't make these arguments and then say that Alex Ferguson is the greatest manager on earth because he won a treble with great academy such as Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, David Beckham, etc. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If you want to complain about Guardiola's achievements at City and compare those to Guardiola then be my guest. But it makes no sense to try to pull this stunt on his time at Barcelona. It is the most ridiculous sour-grapes argument in the world.

Yeah if you ignore that xavi and iniesta had just won the euros and Messi finished 2nd in that year's ballon d'Or it's basically the same as when fergie brought through all those players. I'll give you busquets but not the other 3

 

[el3mel]

Right, so that's the boardrooms, if you want me to say City's structure is incredible then yeah it is. It doesn't change that Pep has a much better squad to work with

More like Pep knows which players he wants and builds his teams on certain principals and fundamentals, rather than buying any random shit from the market then expecting it to work like United and Chelsea.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Yeah if you ignore that xavi and iniesta had just won the euros and Messi finished 2nd in that year's ballon d'Or it's basically the same as when fergie brought through all those players. I'll give you busquets but not the other 3

The situations are much closer to each other than they are different.

 

[united_99]

Also, to be frank, I'm not following this argument at all. How is it relevant to Pep Guardiola's achievements at Barcelona that Manchester United had underinvestment in the late 2010s? This is a thread about Pep Guardiola. It is not, as far as I'm aware, about whether Alex Ferguson did not receive enough investment in the late 2010s (he did not).

I mean wasn’t it you who compared the net spend of the Barca and United final squads? That’s your answer regarding how it is relevant. To me it is more relevant what was spent in that time period 2008/09 - 2012 (or maybe also in the 2-3 years before 2008) than what was spent in 2002 (Rio).

 

[jm99]

The situations are much closer to each other than they are different.

No they aren't. Xavi and iniesta had won the euros and Messi was 2nd in the ballon d'or in 2008, only 3 months of which was under Pep. That's nothing like bringing through a bunch of youth players to thr first team who'd done nothing before your arrival

 

[Gehrman]

No they aren't. Xavi and iniesta had won the euros and Messi was 2nd in the ballon d'or in 2008, only 3 months of which was under Pep. That's nothing like bringing through a bunch of youth players to thr first team who'd done nothing before your arrival

I agree shifting out star players who had won United's 1st league title in decades to replace many of them with unproven youth was bold. I think Xavi was 28-29 when Pep took over and Messi had just finishing 2nd in the Ballon D'Or.

 

[jm99]

I agree shifting out star players who had won United's 1st league title in decades to replace many of them with unproven youth was bold. I think Xavi was 28-29 when Pep took over and Messi had just finishing 2nd in the Ballon D'Or.

He had 2 players in the top 5 of the 2008 ballon d'or and 4 of the top 10 in the fifa World player of the year (when they were separate but both prestigious awards). The idea that its comparable to fergie bringing through a bunch of unproven youth is totally ridiculous

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I mean wasn’t it you who compared the net spend of the Barca and United final squads? That’s your answer regarding how it is relevant. To me it is more relevant what was spent in that time period 2008/09 - 2012 (or maybe also in the 2-3 years before 2008) than what was spent in 2002 (Rio).

I disagree that what was spent on 2002 is not relevant. A four to six year period might not be representative because 1) squad turnover is not that fast, and 2) players who do end up at the club for a long time are likely to be the better ones.

But the person who I was responding to said this:

The idea he didnt spend at Barca is for the birds surely. Nearly 300m in 4 years at a time when that level of spending was not at all common in europe. In the same time period we spent about 130m. And we didn't have Messi, xavi, iniesta, and busquets for free

This post is written to make it sound like Guardiola's Barcelona was the same as City's, that he just dumped a pile of money at the problems.

The fact that paupers Manchester United had a dramatically more expensive squad (not by a few million euros here and there) is good evidence that the argument is not serious.

If you want more evidence that the argument is not serious, then: between 2008 and 2012, these are some net spends for top clubs:

Manchester City - 338m
Real Madrid - 312m
Chelsea - 280m
Juventus - 198m
Barcelona - 162m

It is simply false to claim that "this level of spending was not common in Europe" when most of the top clubs spent more in that exact period!

 

[jm99]

I disagree that what was spent on 2002 is not relevant. A four to six year period might not be representative because 1) squad turnover is not that fast, and 2) players who do end up at the club for a long time are likely to be the better ones.

But the person who I was responding to said this:



This post is written to make it sound like Guardiola's Barcelona was the same as City's, that he just dumped a pile of money at the problems.

The fact that paupers Manchester United had a dramatically more expensive squad (not by a few million euros here and there) is good evidence that the argument is not serious.

If you want more evidence that the argument is not serious, then: between 2008 and 2012, these are some net spends for top clubs:

Manchester City - 338m
Real Madrid - 312m
Chelsea - 280m
Juventus - 198m
Barcelona - 162m

It is simply false to claim that "this level of spending was not common in Europe" when most of the top clubs were spending more.

So 2 oil clubs outspent him, as well as two of the other biggest sides in Europe, one of which was having to do a big rebuild following relegation. When the team you inherit has eto'o, Messi, xavi, ineiesta, busquets, Henry, puyol, valdes and abidal, it's ridiculous to have to be in the top 5 net spends in europe

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

So 2 oil clubs outspent him, as well as two of the other biggest sides in Europe, one of which was having to do a big rebuild following relegation. When the team you inherit has eto'o, Messi, xavi, ineiesta, busquets, Henry, puyol, valdes and abidal, it's ridiculous to have to be in the top 5 net spends in europe

Nobody forced you to lie about Barcelona spending "uncommon" amounts without looking at the numbers. You decided to do that on your own.

eto'o, Messi, xavi, ineiesta, busquets, Henry, puyol, valdes and abidal, it's ridiculous to have to be in the top 5 net spends in europe

Thierry Henry was playing in the MLS by 2010. Eto'o had issues with the manager and was playing in Russia by 2011. Eric Abidal was never able to play more than 3000 minutes per season because of a number of injuries including cancer.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

No, he’s only ever taken jobs that I’d have fancied my chances winning trophies in.

Plus, can we please stop calling him by his pet name on here, it’s a bit cringeworthy. Guardiola.

 

[Gehrman]

No, he’s only ever taken jobs that I’d have fancied my chances winning trophies in.

Plus, can we please stop calling him by his pet name on here, it’s a bit cringeworthy. Guardiola.

Pep Guardiola is my idol

 

[jm99]

Nobody forced you to lie about Barcelona spending "uncommon" amounts without looking at the numbers. You decided to do that on your own.



Thierry Henry was playing in the MLS by 2010. Eto'o had issues with the manager and was playing in Russia by 2011. Eric Abidal was never able to play more than 3000 minutes per season because of a number of injuries including cancer.

It was uncommon, we reached 2 champion league finals in that 4 year period and had a new spend of less than 50m I think. Real Madrid has an historic transfer window in 2009 and city were spending unprecedented amounts. It certainly wasn't commonplace.

Yes and he got to buy ibra, then when that didn't work just feck him off to replace him with David villa. You can't discard eto'o then base things on net spend when he was used as a trade with Ibrahimovic. And eto'o was also a key player in the treble he won, it's really odd to try to act like he hasn't had the best players throughout his career, or massive amounts of money. Why not say he gets these players playing good football and being consistent, if we believed you he's basically had to win with a ragtag group of players who were nothing without him. I meannyou genuinely tried to compere taking over a team with xavi, iniesta and Messi, who all featured in top 10 for worldplayer of the year as well as eto'o, to bringing through giggs, Scholes, Beckham etc. It's ludicrous

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Barcelona's net transfer spending in Guardiola's 4 years was: 41m, 89m, 19m, 13m.

The first year they spent money on a number of players, the only expensive one was Dani Alves at 35m. They did this after losing numerous players: Ronaldinho, Deco, Zambrotta, Oleguer, Edmilson, Thuram.

The second year is the one where they spent a substantial amount of money: on Chygrynskyi, who was a huge flop, on Ibrahimovic, who was a flop for off-the-pitch reasons, and on "Keirrison", a 14m signing that is widely considered to have been some kind of fraud (he never played a game for the club, ever).

The next two seasons their net spend is very low. This is because they can still get decent money for the bigger transfer flops plus sell some players that don't want to be in the team (like Yaya Touré).


Your analytical failure here is that you are trying to act like Guardiola at Barcelona and Guardiola at City were the same thing. They simply weren't. To try and look at one through the prism of the other is leading you to bizarre conclusions, and to make statements that 'ring' true but in fact aren't.

 

[jm99]

Barcelona's net transfer spending in Guardiola's 4 years was: 41m, 89m, 19m, 13m.

The first year they spent money on a number of players, the only expensive one was Dani Alves at 35m. They did this after losing numerous players: Ronaldinho, Deco, Zambrotta, Oleguer, Edmilson, Thuram.

The second year is the one where they spent a substantial amount of money: on Chygrynskyi, who was a huge flop, on Ibrahimovic, who was a flop for off-the-pitch reasons, and on "Keirrison", a 14m signing that is widely considered to have been some kind of fraud (he never played a game for the club, ever).

The next two seasons their net spend is very low. This is because they can still get decent money for the bigger transfer flops plus sell some players that don't want to be in the team (like Yaya Touré).


Your analytical failure here is that you are trying to act like Guardiola at Barcelona and Guardiola at City were the same thing. They simply weren't.

Is there really a difference if you inherit players that would be worth probably 400m combined in today's market, or more (xavi, Messi and iniesta would likely have gone for that) and spending that money. You still get to work with some of the best and most valuable players whether they were purchased or not. When people talk about the money pep has spent at city, its shorthand for the resources in terms of players that he's had. Inheriting those resources doesn't make it a harder challenge

 

[Zehner]

It was uncommon, we reached 2 champion league finals in that 4 year period and had a new spend of less than 50m I think. Real Madrid has an historic transfer window in 2009 and city were spending unprecedented amounts. It certainly wasn't commonplace.

Yes and he got to buy ibra, then when that didn't work just feck him off to replace him with David villa. You can't discard eto'o then base things on net spend when he was used as a trade with Ibrahimovic. And eto'o was also a key player in the treble he won, it's really odd to try to act like he hasn't had the best players throughout his career, or massive amounts of money. Why not say he gets these players playing good football and being consistent, if we believed you he's basically had to win with a ragtag group of players who were nothing without him. I meannyou genuinely tried to compere taking over a team with xavi, iniesta and Messi, who all featured in top 10 for worldplayer of the year as well as eto'o, to bringing through giggs, Scholes, Beckham etc. It's ludicrous

Do you mind answering?

That his team wasn't as good/successful is obvious. But you said they didn't play like the typical Guardiola team. What do you mean with that precisely other than "less succesful"?

 

[jm99]

Do you mind answering?

I specifically do mean less successful, the hype pep has is based on his success (yes his playstyle as well, but nice football with no trophies would not make as impressive a CV). Its a mark agaisnt him to only be able to win titles with world class players in every single position

 

[tomaldinho1]

Might as well rename this thread to ‘Barca under Pep: a debate’.

 

[Zehner]

I specifically do mean less successful, the hype pep has is based on his success (yes his playstyle as well, but nice football with no trophies would not make as impressive a CV). Its a mark agaisnt him to only be able to win titles with world class players in every single position

You're dancing around the question. What exactly is it with Pep's system that requires world class players in every position to work out? I want to hear something substantial, something football related, no pointing to a points return in his EPL debut season. Which aspects of how Guardiola's teams go out to play wouldn't work if he coached a team with lesser financial resources?