Pep has never really beaten the odds. Again Barca is his crowning achievement. But im not just talking about a underdog story but winning on lvl playing field. This is a guy who's career is mired in cheating and doping. He's brilliant, but could he see off oil backed mourinho at chelsea or City like Fergie did. We dont know because he started off on a high. But i think Mourinho knocking them out in 2010 and winning the treble is a incredible achievement. He's earned his right to walk into the best jobs possible but its more surprising that it took this long for him to win another.
Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?
- Thread starter Irrational.
- Start date
Pep has never really beaten the odds. Again Barca is his crowning achievement. But im not just talking about a underdog story but winning on lvl playing field. This is a guy who's career is mired in cheating and doping. He's brilliant, but could he see off oil backed mourinho at chelsea or City like Fergie did. We dont know because he started off on a high. But i think Mourinho knocking them out in 2010 and winning the treble is a incredible achievement. He's earned his right to walk into the best jobs possible but its more surprising that it took this long for him to win another.
Did you quote the wrong post or something. We were talking about Real Madrid and Barcelona.
Yes and by the time you played city your squad had suffered the consequences of the packed schedule after thr world cup.
But also I don't think you were that great last year, you scraped by in every round, and winning the thing didn't make you the best side any more than Chelsea were in the seasons they won. You haven't breached 80 points since Ronaldo left, so I don't think comparing it to your last 3 seasons means all that much when you were worse agaisnt city, worse against psg and worse against Chelsea last season
Edit: Actually I was thinking of goals not points, but you clearly aren't the same kind of great side yiu were in thr mid 2010s, and Barca aren't the same level of side either
Chelsea is one of the richest teams in Europe, Spurs made a CL final and Lyon was a 1 leg match which. Brugge, Leverkusen have never been on the radar and havent done anything of note in Europe yet Simeone and Atletico finished last in that group
Pep crashing out in a CL quarters in a single game CL quarters to Lyon, Losing on away goals to Spurs and losing a final to Chelsea is terrible to you but somehow finishing last in a group of Brugge and Leverkusen is somehow acceptable for Atletico
For emphasis, Simeone won 1 game out of 6 vs Brugge Leverkusen and Porto
Last edited:
He acts like being the "Objective One", while actually being the "Annoying One"....and BTW there is no real issue if someone actually doesn't like Pep at all, In fact I can make a list bigger than Moby Dick of situations or things that Pep did/does that annoys me, yet credit when its due.
I didn't say it's somehow terrible, I actually said I don't particularly judge Guardiola based on that cos it's a knockout, anything can happen, though continually being knocked out by weaker teams is a black mark. But yiu seem to be suggesting if a manager has ever had a bad season (as most do when they don't have a billion to spend on 7 years) then they're immediately disqualified from the conversation. Klopp and simeone's poor seasons count against them, but it's still more impressive to have done what they did than winning with the best teams.
And none of this even considers guardiola's doping scandals, the whole fuentes stuff and City's financial cheating (whichis weird, because you and the other Pepheads keep saying spending way more money and having a far better squad doesn't help, so why did City need to cheat to spend more money?)
I'm replying to people who jeep quoting me, the other poster basically only criticises Ronaldo, unprompted
I don't like pep, I think his faux humility stuff is seriously grating where he always pretends that the teams he just spanked 5-0 are the greatest sides in the world, then totally loses the rag when he actually loses. I also think klopp is a dick, moaning about the wind, or the grass being too long or whatever else.
I genuinely am astonished that the idea, that doing what klopp did with Liverpool is more difficult than doing what Pep did with twice as many resources at city, is a controversial opinion, yet you've had people arguing that having a far deeper bench isn't an advantage because Liverpool matched city in 18/19 while having a weaker bench, its ludicrous
Crazy thought, maybe his isn't biased?
And while I expect fans of a certain team to have biases, I also expect them to work on them to overcome these biases as every adult sould do.
According to your logic, we don't know if Klopp could cut it with a budget as high as Pep's since we've never seen him do it. I mean...
Usually you ascribe that to more difficult challenges, using your logic brendan Rodgers at celtic was as good an achievement as winning the treble unbeaten in a league where yiu aren't much better than every other side,
Your bias shows in trying to say having a bigger budget is a harder challenge. It's a ridiculous claim that no one who wasn't biased would try to make. Obviously pep doesn't think so or he'd spend less to make things easier, and city don't think so otherwise they wouldn't cheat to get to spend more
Pep wins one tournament Internationally & this thread would stop just like it did with the players.
Most of these are strawmen and not what people were actually arguing.
No they aren't you said pep winning with xavi iniesta and Messi was similar to fergie brining through youth, its not at all. Him bringing through busquets and Pedro fair enough, but 3 players who were all top 10 in the world before he took over definitely not.
You also said city only had 10 players compared to Liverpool 's 7 outside the first team that contributed and they only cost 70% more on average so that's not a big advantage.
Why is it so difficult to say, yes pep clearly had an advantage at every team he managed over every other coach, but I find his style of play or consistency or whatever to make him the greatest rather than trying to argue that having so many resources compared to everyone else is a clear advantage
This isn't really an accurate representation of my argument, hence 'strawman.'
You have a recurring habit of making these sweeping claims. Messi was one of the best players in the world, that is very clear. Xavi and Iniesta top 10? Before Guardiola took over?
Before Guardiola took over, neither of them had ever placed in a Balon d'Or shortlist. In fact, Iniesta didn't even make the list in 2008, after Guardiola was appointed! There is no basis other than hindsight/bias to claim these were "top 10 players in the world before Guardiola took over."
What actually happened is you said City had a bench full of 50m players. You were corrected on that: the average cost of their bench was only 33m. So now it turns out that for your argument, a 40% difference in what you assumed City's bench cost doesn't matter. Almost like this isn't actually a quantitative argument at all and you don't really care what the numbers are!
They were Both top 10 in the 2008 world player of the year list. That wasn't down to 2 months under guardiola, thr first part of the new seaosn was hardly ever included in the voting it was usually based on tournaments of the previous season and international tournaments. All 3 of them plus eto'o featured in the world player of the year top 10. Messi and Xavi featured in the ballon d'or and wpoty top 5.
Again of that list from the 18/19, players who weren't in the 11 most used de bruyne, mendy, mahrez and danilo were all 50m players. Foden bringing the average down doesn't mean the rest aren't 50m players, that's the issue with using an average. Given you can only use 5 subs, having 4 50m players certainly indicates far more strength in depth than any other side
And from a different post:
This is, in fact, not what I said. This is what I said:
It is not the same point. It should be obvious why.
It's your assumption that managing a club with a bigger budget is easier. Yet we've seen countless coaches excel at smaller clubs and fail at bigger clubs where they had better players and more financial freedom. By the way, that's not my opinion. I'm simply applying your logic to other cases to highlight how wrong it is.
If you want to hear my opinion: The job of a coach is to enable a team to punch above its weight through and that usually comes down to three general disciplines: A) Having a theoretical concept of how to play football and adjusting this idea to the circumstances/squad, b) transporting this idea into the heads of the players to an extent that it becomes second nature to them and c) man management/club politics. That's by the way fundamentally different to the role of a team manager as Ferguson was who was more of a generalist. And also the reason why we discuss completely different topics in here: The criteria you mention here (achieving stuff with a limited budget, etc.) are performance metrics for a director of football for me but not for a coach.
Anyway, I've seen no other coach who enables a team to punch as much above its weight as Guardiola. Yes, he often had some of the best sets of players available in the business but still, there is nobody else who could get as much out of them as he did. And that can't be measured in net spend or UCL titles but it becomes obvious when you watch his teams. This level of understanding, automatisms, cohesiveness, patterns of play and so forth is simply unrivalled. I am completely sure that no other coach (except maybe for Klopp) would have accomplished the same at City as Guardiola did.
Danilo cost 30m. Can you make at least one post without a made-up number?
The average is not down because of a single player. It is down because Gabriel Jesus cost 30m, Kompany cost 8.5m, Delph cost 11.5m, Danilo cost 30m, and Zinchenko cost 2.25m. Those are all well below the "50m" standard you set.
You said Why should city not get as many points with a great 11 and weak bench when Liverpool did. The answer is obvious, I think klopp did a better job with his more limited resources. Are you genuinely suggesting if you took away City's strong bench and gave them Liverpool's they wouldn't have dropped a single point? That's an incredible claim
Tbh I thought danilo was a swap deal that they fudged the books, I'm forgetting thats when they sold him to juventus for cancelo. But even still regardless of the numbers the bench was 70% more expensive per player than Liverpool's, how is thay not an advantage
Klopp got Liverpool to 97 and 99 points. How is guardiola getting city to 100 points and 98 points getting them more above their weight than Klopp.
He didn't get bayern's players punching above their weight, they went from 3 finals in 4 years, added lewandowski and didn't get past the semi finals (where Madrid thrashed them 5-0)
Guardiola getting his teams to punch above their weight is the last thing I'd wver associate with them, he certainly doesn't feck up, and he has a lot of excellent tacitcal plans, but he absolutely does not get teams punching above their weight, in fact its the biggest criticism you could have, that he doesn't do that
I am aware of that. I addressed it in my post:
Here, I'll make this easier.
'Great starting 11' = X points
'Great starting 11' + 'great bench' = X + Y points
Therefore,
'Great bench' = Y points
Since Liverpool finished 1 point behind City, and since many of us here believe that City and Liverpool's starting lineups were of comparable qualities, the math comes out to 'Great Bench' = 1 point. That means if you use Liverpool as your go-to example, then the bench doesn't appear to matter, therefore it is a bad argument.
I am addressing the strength of the argument, not whether it could possibly be true.
What you are trying to present, instead, is:
'Great starting 11' + 'Klopp' = X + A
'Great starting 11' + 'great bench' + 'Guardiola' = X + Y + B
And then just making up all the numbers in your head so that the conclusion comes out to Guardiola < Klopp.
No the argument is actually klopp plus great starting xi = x points
Guardiola plus great starting xi plus great bench = x plus y points
And since a great bench is clearly worth more than one point a season, then klopp was worth more than guardiola
You're coming at it from a position that no one could be better than guardiola, therefore a much better bench can only be worth a single point, but that's a logical fallacy, because it's based on guardiola definitely being the best and an unwillingness to consider otherwise
Eye test. City was a better team than Liverpool which in itself was incredible. This is also reflected in their expected points. In 19/20, Liverpool ended with 25 more points than expected, City with 6 less. This shows how clinical Liverpool was (and clinicalness usually has almost nothing to do with the coach but the player quality).
And I'm sorry mate, but if you don't get how Guardiola makes his teams punch above their weight then you may watch football but you most definitely don't understand it
Eye test. City was a better team than Liverpool which in itself was incredible. This is also reflected in their expected points. In 19/20, Liverpool ended with 25 more points than expected, City with 6 less. This shows how clinical Liverpool was (and clinicalness usually has almost nothing to do with the coach but the player quality).
And I'm sorry mate, but if you don't get how Guardiola makes his teams punch above their weight then you may watch football but you most definitely don't understand it
If yiu think guardiola does get his teams to punch above their weight when he's been give more resources than any coach in history, and only been able to win a champions league without Messi when the rest of the big teams in Europe are all in a rebuilding phase, then you may watch football but yiu don't understand it (or your Barcelona bias is making you lie)
What a ridiculous way to discredit a manager.
It really isn't, he took over a treble winning bayern side who'd reached 3 finals in 4 years before he took over and didn't reach a single final. With City he's only been able to win one when bayern, psg, Madrid, Barca etc, are all in a rebuilding phase. This is with the most resources of any manager in Europe. Mourinho won two trebles, one with inter and one with Porto, and he beat Barcelona with Messi xavi and ineista at their peaks on the way to one. Klopp beat Barcelona that nearly went invincible in the league on the way to a title. Pep beat Bayern who had sacked their manager abiut a month before the tie and Madrid who were miles off the pace in la liga
That’s a lot of words to say three-time CL winner.
That's funny because it is you who never talks about football but only money related stuff or points records. I haven't heard anything insightful from you about football as a sport. For what it's worth all you posted in this thread could have come from somebody who knows football only from news papers, forums, statistic websites and other written stuff.
Reading your tagine and looking up the definition of irony
Guardiola reminds me of Messi a bit.
It was a little weird that a player of Messi's caliber didn't win the World Cup or Copa America. But he stuck around long enough (at a good level) that he was able to do it.
Guardiola's CL record is a bit unimpressive given some of the things said about him... but he's sticking around long enough. He's now at 3 titles, and if they win one more he'll be tied for most wins. At that point what are you really going to criticize? That he didn't win them 'fast enough'? That won't really matter in the end. No one's going to begrudge Messi for "only winning at 30something" either.
It was a little weird that a player of Messi's caliber didn't win the World Cup or Copa America. But he stuck around long enough (at a good level) that he was able to do it.
Guardiola's CL record is a bit unimpressive given some of the things said about him... but he's sticking around long enough. He's now at 3 titles, and if they win one more he'll be tied for most wins. At that point what are you really going to criticize? That he didn't win them 'fast enough'? That won't really matter in the end. No one's going to begrudge Messi for "only winning at 30something" either.
He’s not even the greatest hypocrite of all time
Definitely not. If Messi loses one of those shootouts in 2022 through no fault of his own he's still in that goat debate with a good claim to the title. Messi also did things in terms of records no other players managed, and there's a difference between player and manager thay you can't compare like for like. Pep going to jvuentus and making them champions of Europe and italy off of a budget with a poor team to start with would do more for the GOAT debate than spending another 500m in the next 3 years and winning another 2 titles at city
And I'm sorry mate, but if you don't get how Guardiola makes his teams punch above their weight then you may watch football but you most definitely don't understand it
The boxing analogy is funny. City've got to be heavyweights, so which clubs above their weight class are receiving these punches?
And distracting again
I got that for defending xG but I doubt you want to adress this topic in regards to Guardiola.
And distracting again
I got that for defending xG but I doubt you want to adress this topic in regards to Guardiola.
I haven't used statistics though, I've said winning with Liverpool and the state they were in when he joined and their resources is harder than what Pep did. What he did at dortmund, getting past mourinho's Madrid in 2013 was insane, that's what punching above your weight looks like. 3 leagues with bayern, no matter how dominant yiu made them domestically and no European achievements is not punching above your weight
It is nonsense to judge beating Bayern and Real Madrid as the champions league as not being impressive because they’re in transition. Real Madrid were defending champions with the same players that beat them a season before! In 1999, United beat Inter Milan and Juventus who were 8th and 9th in Serie A but it did not matter. They were still serious clubs with serious players. Bayern Munich won 8 straight matches in the competition before they faced City. ‘Teams in a rebuilding phase’ is such a nonsense to discredit any manager for winning a trophy.
This was clearly quite a weak year for the champions league, I can't imagine anyone saying otherwise. You had inter and AC, two teams that would struggle to make the top 6 of the Premier league both in the semi finals.
So in conclusion Pep is just a good manager (or maybe not even that), not among the best managers in the history of the game, nor among the more impressive nowadays...which leads me to think that we might all have to call him right now and ask him for the lottery number because I can't think of almost anyone with such an amount of luck (this goes clearly beyond timing) in his carrer.
...maybe I'm actually wrong, I'm not being logical enough, because when I think about it more deeply, a fella who had so much going on his favor everytime and that actually fvck it's up under such favorable conditions, cannot only not be THAT good at his job as its said, he plain and simple ain't even good at his job....
in fact, what is his job? what does he actually do?...maybe he is the greatest hipnotizer of the world in disguise and in the meantime he sells his own daughters for top jobs, it's incredible how assertive we can become when we leave all the bullshit aside, now I see it clear
in fact, what is his job? what does he actually do?...maybe he is the greatest hipnotizer of the world in disguise and in the meantime he sells his own daughters for top jobs, it's incredible how assertive we can become when we leave all the bullshit aside, now I see it clear