Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

Camilo said:
I think he's probably the best ever. His total dominance of the pitch is unique - I've never seen any team or manager get close to playing the way his teams have played. I've always thought his teams lacked a brutal cutting edge (Haaland probably isn't the guy for him - a RvP or Benzema would be more effective), but that's probably because they have to sacrifice a little of that aggression for control... Clearly he's found a dominant balance.

I've enjoyed watching other teams more, but I reckon Pep's come closest to "solving" football. And year after year....I wish I had 10% of the drive he has.
Click to expand...


A bit over the top. Sure, he's mastered the art of farming a league for titles under near ideal conditions. Hardly groundbreaking.

And closest to "solving" football? For that, at the very least his CL endeavours need to be much more chanceless. After all this, he has made the same number of finals as Klopp and he's basically squeaked past Klopp in 3 title races in England.

All this metronomic efficiency against mediocre sides means that he's very good at keeping his players always motivated, even against poor opposition. You know, like what you need to win 13 PL titles.
 
erikcred said:
A bit over the top. Sure, he's mastered the art of farming a league for titles under near ideal conditions. Hardly groundbreaking.

And closest to "solving" football? For that, at the very least his CL endeavours need to be much more chanceless. After all this, he has made the same number of finals as Klopp and he's basically squeaked past Klopp in 3 title races in England.

All this metronomic efficiency against mediocre sides means that he's very good at keeping his players always motivated, even against poor opposition. You know, like what you need to win 13 PL titles.
Click to expand...

He’s very good at maximising his unquestionable squad superiority over the rest of the league.

You would think he’s turning water into wine with the superlatives people give him.
 
Depends on how u define best manager. Pep is best at coming into a top club with unlimited resources and winning there is no one better at that. I can’t see him who doing what SAF did at Aberdeen, Cloughie at Forest or even Graham Taylor at Watford, these were miracles, no one wid have believed they cud do wot they did. I can’t see anyone being surprised at what Pep has done or regard it is a miracle just very good at a particular scenario . So depends how u measuring the GOAT criteria
 
erikcred said:
A bit over the top. Sure, he's mastered the art of farming a league for titles under near ideal conditions. Hardly groundbreaking.

And closest to "solving" football? For that, at the very least his CL endeavours need to be much more chanceless. After all this, he has made the same number of finals as Klopp and he's basically squeaked past Klopp in 3 title races in England.

All this metronomic efficiency against mediocre sides means that he's very good at keeping his players always motivated, even against poor opposition. You know, like what you need to win 13 PL titles.
Click to expand...

If "solving football" is even a thing...then who is closer?
 
Taribo's Gap said:
But you expounded upon criteria for achieving it?
Click to expand...

No I didn't. There's no such criteria.

I interpreted the poster's phrase as "close to perfection" and pointed out my reasons for believing that Pep is not that far ahead of his contemporaries like Klopp.
 
erikcred said:
No I didn't. There's no such criteria.

I interpreted the poster's phrase as "close to perfection" and pointed out my reasons for believing that Pep is not that far ahead of his contemporaries like Klopp.
Click to expand...

So then adopting your interpretation, who is closer to perfection?

Wouldn't "not that far ahead" still be "closer"? The initial claim was "closest to..."
 
Taribo's Gap said:
So then adopting your interpretation, who is closer to perfection?

Wouldn't "not that far ahead" still be "closer"? The initial claim was "closest to..."
Click to expand...

Pep's managing career at Bayern and City is basically the same as Kipchoge's sub-2 hour run (thanks to INEOS) with a laser guide, pace car, dozens of pace runners, perfect weather conditions, flat terrain and brand new shoe tech.

It's definitely cool to find out what's possible for humans under completely ideal conditions. But there's a reason why competitive marathons are not run under these conditions.

So yeah, doing slightly better than Klopp and definitely less than SAF with infinitely more resources than either doesn't bring him "closer" to perfection than either of them. Mourinho's no less than Pep either for what he did with Porto, the treble with Inter.
 
erikcred said:
Pep's managing career at Bayern and City is basically the same as Kipchoge's sub-2 hour run (thanks to INEOS) with a laser guide, pace car, dozens of pace runners, perfect weather conditions, flat terrain and brand new shoe tech.

It's definitely cool to find out what's possible for humans under completely ideal conditions. But there's a reason why competitive marathons are not run under these conditions.

So yeah, doing slightly better than Klopp and definitely less than SAF with infinitely more resources than either doesn't bring him "closer" to perfection than either of them. Mourinho's no less than Pep either for what he did with Porto, the treble with Inter.
Click to expand...

So your answer is that Klopp, Mourinho and SAF are equal to or closer to perfection than Pep, correct?
 
What SAF did at United was extremely difficult to emulate. Greatest of all time without iota of doubt.
 
iHicksy said:
Let's not forget Pep was a convicted drugs cheat, he wasn't just taking a little bit of something either. He was taking one of the most powerful injectable anabolic steroids on the market in Nandrolone. Then there's the whole blood bags being destroyed for the spanish national team so they couldn't be tested - the majority of which played for Barcelona at the time. There can be no doubt Pep's teams are drugged to the nines.
Click to expand...

Not only that, he fought to get off on a technicality and hired the doctor he blamed it on at Barcelona.

And let's not also forget about he went about falling out with the Bayern medical team, who no one had any major issues working with for almost 40 years. Healing Hans always had a reputation as being a bit unorthodox. While there Pep's team sent Thiago to Spain for treatment, recovery was initially 6-7 weeks according to the Bayern medical team, his magical trip to Spain reduced that to 4. Pretty sure he came back early and ended up being out for even longer.
 
erikcred said:
Mourinho's no less than Pep either for what he did with Porto, the treble with Inter.
Click to expand...


I feel like Mourinho at Porto gets overrated a bit when he got really lucky. Porto really only upset one side in that CL run, United in the R16. Every other side Porto faced (Lyon, Deportivo, Monaco), they were at least equal in team strength. All the favorites were upset that year. Sure Porto was 50-1 so it seems like a big underdog win at the start of the tournament but their CL final opponent, Monaco was 66-1 and an even bigger underdog.

Plus Mourinho underachieved in the CL with unlimited resources at Chelsea and Real and his career since Real has been lackluster and mediocre at best. The Inter CL win was a great achievement though. Taken as a whole, Mourinho's career is underwhelming compared to the other managers discussed here and he is not in that upper tier historically.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I feel like Mourinho at Porto gets overrated a bit when he got really lucky. Porto really only upset one side in that CL run, United in the R16. Every other side Porto faced (Lyon, Deportivo, Monaco), they were at least equal in team strength. All the favorites were upset that year. Sure Porto was 50-1 so it seems like a big underdog win at the start of the tournament but their CL final opponent, Monaco was 66-1 and an even bigger underdog.
Click to expand...

That Deportivo eliminated Juventus and beat legendary Milan 4-0.
Monaco eliminated both Real Madrid and Chelsea, so definitely not an easy path.

oneniltothearsenal said:
Plus Mourinho underachieved in the CL with unlimited resources at Chelsea and Real and his career since Real has been lackluster and mediocre at best. The Inter CL win was a great achievement though. Taken as a whole, Mourinho's career is underwhelming compared to the other managers discussed here and he is not in that upper tier historically.
Click to expand...

He has the same number of CL titles as SAF. Also, he won these titles with underdogs like Porto and in the Inter case, beating both heavy favorites Messi's Barca and Bayern along the way.
 
heraklion said:
That Deportivo eliminated Juventus and beat legendary Milan 4-0.
Monaco eliminated both Real Madrid and Chelsea, so definitely not an easy path.
He has the same number of CL titles as SAF. Also, he won these titles with underdogs like Porto and in the Inter case, beating both heavy favorites Messi's Barca and Bayern along the way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the favorites were upset so Porto's path couldn't have been better for them, which happens sometimes in knockout competitions since stronger teams can have off days and underdogs can go on a hot streak. Mourinho couldn't have picked his opponents any better than how it worked out. No way would Mourinho have preferred to play Milan and Real than Monaco and Deportivo.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Yeah, the favorites were upset so Porto's path couldn't have been better for them, which happens sometimes in knockout competitions since stronger teams can have off days and underdogs can go on a hot streak. Mourinho couldn't have picked his opponents any better than how it worked out. No way would Mourinho have preferred to play Milan and Real than Monaco and Deportivo.
Click to expand...
Mourinho played Madrid in the group stages and got smashed
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I feel like Mourinho at Porto gets overrated a bit when he got really lucky. Porto really only upset one side in that CL run, United in the R16. Every other side Porto faced (Lyon, Deportivo, Monaco), they were at least equal in team strength. All the favorites were upset that year. Sure Porto was 50-1 so it seems like a big underdog win at the start of the tournament but their CL final opponent, Monaco was 66-1 and an even bigger underdog.

Plus Mourinho underachieved in the CL with unlimited resources at Chelsea and Real and his career since Real has been lackluster and mediocre at best. The Inter CL win was a great achievement though. Taken as a whole, Mourinho's career is underwhelming compared to the other managers discussed here and he is not in that upper tier historically.
Click to expand...
Mourinho is probably about par for the course in the CL? 2 excellent wins with Porto and Inter but couldn't get teams over the line in 2 dream seats with Chelski and Real.
Pep I think should have won more given the clubs he's been at and the money he's spent, plus far less competition.

Zidane obviously the CL goat given i think he's been a manager in it 4 times? And won it 3 of them.


kaiser1 said:
Mourinho played Madrid in the group stages and got smashed
Click to expand...
If you mean he lost 1-3 at the Bernabeu and drew with them at home then, yes, smashed.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Plus Mourinho underachieved in the CL with unlimited resources at Chelsea and Real and his career since Real has been lackluster and mediocre at best. The Inter CL win was a great achievement though. Taken as a whole, Mourinho's career is underwhelming compared to the other managers discussed here and he is not in that upper tier historically.
Click to expand...

Bar Zidane, all managers with enough history who's names are mentioned in this conversation for "greatest of all time" could have done better in the CL

Fergie: even after the foreigner rule in Europe, he definitely left a few off the table with the treble winning side (Madrid 2000, Dortmund 2003, Porto 2004). 2009 and 2011 are excused, but 2010? The season we entered the Europa League?

Ancelotti: Deportivo collapse, Istanbul, last season, Barcelona 2006

Mourinho: 2005-07, Madrid 2012, etc

Heynekes: 2011 :lol:

If you've managed long enough in this competition, you'll have enough "mistakes" that anyone scarred by your existence can build a solid case that you've underachieved and are more of a fraud than a GOAT...
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Yeah, the favorites were upset so Porto's path couldn't have been better for them, which happens sometimes in knockout competitions since stronger teams can have off days and underdogs can go on a hot streak. Mourinho couldn't have picked his opponents any better than how it worked out. No way would Mourinho have preferred to play Milan and Real than Monaco and Deportivo.
Click to expand...

Your post makes no sense.

The same Deportivo beat both Barca and Real Madrid 2-0 in La Liga that season, you probably have no idea on how strong Deportivo was in those years. They finished La Liga above Real and 1-point below Barca that season.

Monaco thing was not one off either, in 4 games against Chelsea & Real, they only lost once scoring 10 goals against them, so that "off days" explanation is copium..
 
Last edited:
[

tomaldinho1 said:
Mourinho is probably about par for the course in the CL? 2 excellent wins with Porto and Inter but couldn't get teams over the line in 2 dream seats with Chelski and Real.
Pep I think should have won more given the clubs he's been at and the money he's spent, plus far less competition.

Zidane obviously the CL goat given i think he's been a manager in it 4 times? And won it 3 of them.
Click to expand...

adexkola said:
Bar Zidane, all managers with enough history who's names are mentioned in this conversation for "greatest of all time" could have done better in the CL

Fergie: even after the foreigner rule in Europe, he definitely left a few off the table with the treble winning side (Madrid 2000, Dortmund 2003, Porto 2004). 2009 and 2011 are excused, but 2010? The season we entered the Europa League?

Ancelotti: Deportivo collapse, Istanbul, last season, Barcelona 2006

Mourinho: 2005-07, Madrid 2012, etc

Heynekes: 2011 :lol:

If you've managed long enough in this competition, you'll have enough "mistakes" that anyone scarred by your existence can build a solid case that you've underachieved and are more of a fraud than a GOAT...
Click to expand...

This is fair, a lot of top managers might not have the CL trophy haul you'd expect while others might have been fortunate to have the CL trophies they have, DiMatteo being the most egregious in European Cup/CL history. Of the managers mentioned here for greatest I'm personally much less impressed with Mourinho than Guardiola and Fergie though. Also think Sacchi was much better than Mourinho personally but different era with the EC. Probably more controversial here, I'd rate Klopp over Mourinho.

heraklion said:
Your post makes no sense.

The same Deportivo beat both Barca and Real Madrid 2-0 in La Liga that season, you probably have no idea on how strong Deportivo was in those years. They finished La Liga above Real and 1-point below Barca that season.

Monaco thing was not one off either, in 4 games against Chelsea & Real, they only lost once scoring 10 goals against them, so that "off days" explanation is copium..
Click to expand...

Real were still the defending La Liga champions, had legendary players that even a little past their peak were capable of stepping up in big tournaments and won the tie against Porto im the group stages. I'm sure Mourinho would have preferred to face Monaco in the final rather than RM.

It's not that Monaco, Lyon and Deportivo weren't very good, it's just that at the time, they weren't considered the strongest teams in the CL they could have faced. I watched most of the CL that year (since it was the "Invincibles" season) and at the start of the knockouts, I would have said RM, Arsenal and then Bayern on one side and Milan and Juventus on the other were the strongest sides Porto could have faced.

Also, because of the era, some of the best teams in their domestic leagues that season weren't in the CL that year (Valencia, Barca, Werder Bremen and Roma were all top 2 in their respective leagues but not in the CL).

If you think Porto faced the toughest campaign they could have, then cheers. After watching a ton of football in that era, I always believed they got lucky with their matchups that year as some winners inevitably do.
 
People often call him a chequebook manager but he's the best chequebook manager around.
 
There are so many what ifs revolving around Pep because of his unique circumstances that really caveat his placing in an otherwise uniform and organic process. Given his resources, he has massively underperformed, because with the advantages he has always had, league competition becomes a broken formality whilst performance in Europe becomes even more important a barometer than it is for other coaches because it's the only time he faces anything like their adversity.

Other coaches have shown what you can do to a league where you absolutely dominant in terms of squad and resources - Jose did the same with Chelsea and the few times SAF was given a bigger pot to play with, our league performance in terms of both dominance and consistency took on monumental leaps. The league becomes badly bastardised when one team has humongous financial advantage over the others, so winning it becomes less impressive and every single one of the managers mentioned said that the CL became a different kind of proving ground, and it's also no coincidence all are defined by the epic battles against equivalent squads therein.

Sacchi created arguably the best team of al time when he had great resources; SAF got himself to 3 CL finals with what is recognised as our strongest ever side, breaking records along the way; Mourinho was at the helm of a juggernaut at peak squad strength, so it clearly goes hand in hand when über sides enter the fray, and one should question what the timeline looks like for any of these managers with the resources and squads Pep gets handed to him every season. No lulls, no weak areas, no chopping and changing excessively because stars leave or fade (Gullit & Van Basten; Ronaldo & Tevez), just nothing organic or recognised as pitfalls for everyone else.

It also bleeds into ideas and systems: Pep can dream up literally anything he wants in May, and by August, he'll have the majority of the components to implement it, no bother. No other coach can say the same, so for all the genius and innovation; it's not the same when you can press reset at the end of a campaign and load a new game for the next one. There's nothing organically familiar about that, and such artificial settings have to be objectively accounted for.

Pep has no storied road to the top. There's not even an idea if he could do it. Should he have had to? Well, when comparing him to managers/coaches whose biggest and most admirable feats mightn't even come at the top of their standing, but on the path leading to it, kinda, yeah. Or at least in lieu of that, shown his own journey to success through adversity, which for him is solely Europe until he faces a league side who matches his own for resources and ability to overhaul at the click of a summer window finger.

Pep is what he is, and his biggest contributions probably lay in implementation of systems that send shockwaves through the sport, but in terms of greatest, his situation is too disparate to truly be assessed in the real world - give his resources to others and they wouldn't have won less.

And ending, it astounds me the amount of people who don't understand what resources refer to when it comes to City. Simply stating clubs like United have spent 'more' whilst taking official figures as fact, that also give zero account of expenditure throughout the club in a given season. City's upkeep is astronomical, and as seamless as their operations appear to be, the amount of money pumped in to maintain that dwarfs everyone they compete with domestically, let alone when the actual dodginess of payments across the squad are factored, or not... as the case clearly is for those going by the "facts" presented to them. In game terms, it's the constant production of elite talent and constant smoothing of edges to hone the product.
 
Last edited:
If going by UCL performance, he has heavily underperformed. He has three UCL victories to his name as a manager.

At Bayern he took over a treble winning machine and made them worse. Bayern 2013 were so good they looked unbeatable. He took over and failed to reach even the final. In 2016 they were screwed over by the referee, so some extent, but they never looked as strong as they did under Heynckes.

At Barcelona he has two UCL victories, with a revolutionary style that took the world by surprise. Both his UCL victories with Barcelona though are overshadowed by controversial referee decisions, remembered by many fans as the UEFALONA era.

At city he has had the most stacked team in the world for many years and overcomplicated his tactics and got knocked out so many times to weaker opponents. Won it only last year. Not a great record.

Still among the best coaches of all time for his revolutionary influence on the game and his league record.
 
erikcred said:
A bit over the top. Sure, he's mastered the art of farming a league for titles under near ideal conditions. Hardly groundbreaking.

And closest to "solving" football? For that, at the very least his CL endeavours need to be much more chanceless. After all this, he has made the same number of finals as Klopp and he's basically squeaked past Klopp in 3 title races in England.

All this metronomic efficiency against mediocre sides means that he's very good at keeping his players always motivated, even against poor opposition. You know, like what you need to win 13 PL titles.
Click to expand...

I'd rate Klopp's achievements at Liverpool above what Pep has done with City.

He's done nothing more than expected with the resources at his disposal. Arguably a fair bit less.
 
11101 said:
I'd rate Klopp's achievements at Liverpool above what Pep has done with City.

He's done nothing more than expected with the resources at his disposal. Arguably a fair bit less.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's not some ringing endorsement, that's for sure. With those advantages, it's exactly what's supposed to happen, and yet in Europe, they aren't pulling up trees.
 
Fortitude said:
Exactly. It's not some ringing endorsement, that's for sure. With those advantages, it's exactly what's supposed to happen, and yet in Europe, they aren't pulling up trees.
Click to expand...
What advantages exactly? And why haven't United and Chelsea won even half of what Pep has won within this period if it's all about spending ?
 
Fortitude said:
... resources and squads Pep gets handed to him every season. No lulls, no weak areas, no chopping and changing excessively because stars leave or fade (Gullit & Van Basten; Ronaldo & Tevez), just nothing organic or recognised as pitfalls for everyone else.
Click to expand...

That may be true of City (debatable, really) but it certainly wasn't true that his Barcelona squads had no weak areas or lulls.
 
The thing that people willfully overlook with Pep's time at Barca is that the team is known as the (arguably) best ever exactly because of him. It's no coincidence it's not Enrique's or Rijkaard's sides that gets that label.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Valdes is one of the weak areas.
Click to expand...

Was he that bad? Makes sense that I don't remember it with that midfield and attack though..

Strangely similar to the City situation when he took over. It was mainly the defence that needed fixing then too.
 
He wasn't bad, and Barcelona had a great squad. But 'how should we rate it' tends to be a function of 'how much credit to people want to give Guardiola.'
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
That may be true of City (debatable, really) but it certainly wasn't true that his Barcelona squads had no weak areas or lulls.
Click to expand...

Having the greatest midfield trio of all time sure helps mask a few of those.

With the players he had, again he did nothing more than expected. Zidane certainly did more with less at Madrid.
 
11101 said:
Having the greatest midfield trio of all time sure helps mask a few of those.

With the players he had, again he did nothing more than expected. Zidane certainly did more with less at Madrid.
Click to expand...

Plus peak Messi. ZIdane inherited probably the strongest Madrid side of all time though. They both did well with what they had.
 
Guardiola is the one who brought up 19/20 year old Busquets from the B team (where he had managed him) and made him the starter for Barcelona over Yaya Touré. Bringing up youngsters is often praised here as the mark of a great manager so him helping build the 'greatest midfield trio of all time' is a plus not a minus.
 
Barcelona before Pep were not said to have a dominant midfield or attack. Barcelona dominant team included a Pique who couldn't get game time at Man utd. All these changed with Pep but he gets no credit for it. After Pep they made 1 CL final in the last 12yrs. Pique Pedro Busquets were players many would have overlooked, Even Xavi was about to be sent away

Pep at City has played an entire season with Gabriel Jesus as striker with Delph or Zinchenko at Left Back, with Stones and Otamendi as CB

All the players who got laughed at before City or in their first season suddenly became "no weakness"
 
Last edited:
Iker Quesadillas said:
Guardiola is the one who brought up 19/20 year old Busquets from the B team (where he had managed him) and made him the starter for Barcelona over Yaya Touré. Bringing up youngsters is often praised here as the mark of a great manager so him helping build the 'greatest midfield trio of all time' is a plus not a minus.
Click to expand...

Stop it. Everyone would have done the same...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.