Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

Fortitude said:
I thought it was clear I was talking about league campaigns. I think my posts in this thread have been clear, and they probably best answer your questions, too:
Click to expand...

Yeah, all of those coaches won multiple league titles. If anything, the other winnings of the under-resourced managers only buttresses their credentials and case for inclusion in the upper echelon, since resources presumably have the most impact on a league campaigns. If it's just about league campaigns, then no the quoted posts aren't really providing clarity on how the questions are addressed.

Also, you talk about organic squads and then invoke Sacchi, a guy whose noteworthy period of success can be described as anything but organic. Berlusconi raided the league for domestic talent and broke records for international talent in very short order. Sacchi never did what Pep did in the league, even with arguably the greatest team ever. Presumably Sacchi is amongst that echelon of coaches that could replicate what Pep has done, and yet he only has one big league title to his name. Even if you grant that the league was difficult at the time, his immediate successor comes in a wins three leagues on the bounce. This is not to diminish Sacchi, but I'm not sure why assumptions should be granted when they run against Pep, but dismissed when they favor Pep. I lend much more credence to points on the board than anything based on hypotheticals and assumptions, even if they have their place. Some of these assumptions are doing a lot of legwork.

As regards league accomplishments, Mourinho has never done what Pep has done in the Prem or anywhere else. Pep has won 6 of 7 now, whereas Mourinho always flames out. It's not just the highs or flashes of brilliance with Pep in the league, but the sustained, relentless winning year over year. That is a distinct accomplishment from a brilliant flash. Mourinho had every opportunity to achieve this, but he has not. He succumbed to SAF the first time. Even when he returned to Chelsea after SAF was gone, he flamed out again. The league was weak at this time and it would have been the perfect time for Mourinho to stamp out Pep-like dominance, but he didn't. I'm not having that the guy who had multiple stints at Chelsea and a stint a Real Madrid is some underdog.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
As regards league accomplishments, Mourinho has never done what Pep has done in the Prem or anywhere else. Pep has won 6 of 7 now, whereas Mourinho always flames out. It's not just the highs or flashes of brilliance with Pep in the league, but the sustained, relentless winning year over year. That is a distinct accomplishment from a brilliant flash. Mourinho had every opportunity to achieve this, but he has not. He succumbed to SAF the first time. Even when he returned to Chelsea after SAF was gone, he flamed out again. The league was weak at this time and it would have been the perfect time for Mourinho to stamp out Pep-like dominance, but he didn't. I'm not having that the guy who had multiple stints at Chelsea and a stint a Real Madrid is some underdog.
Click to expand...

I think you could argue though that what Mourinho did from 02-03 to 03-04 with Porto as a stand alone achievement at a club is more impressive than any of stand alone achievements of Pep at any club.
 
CoopersDream said:
This is what most doesn't seem to get. The biggest reason why City is where they are now is because they've been great in the market. It's just about impossible to build a squad as good as they have without being great in the market. Even if United bought 10 senior players a year they wouldn't have gotten to the place City is now because the fact that about four out of five signings are unsuccessful here.
Click to expand...

I think part of what @Fortitude might be saying is that the ability of the club to be good in the market is included as part of the resources at Pep's disposal and is fueled by City's spending on the broader project (e.g. competent executives, forward planning, scouting, etc.). It's not just money spent on players, but the whole setup.
 
SilentWitness said:
I think you could argue though that what Mourinho did from 02-03 to 03-04 with Porto as a stand alone achievement at a club is more impressive than any of stand alone achievements of Pep at any club.
Click to expand...

Absolutely you could. Many managers probably have better standalone achievements than Pep. Xabi Alonso probably has a better standalone achievement than Pep. Though Pep does have some good standalone achievements, those are not really the central thrust to his claim to greatness. It's the overall body of work/winning and the tactical "innovation" and influence.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
I think part of what @Fortitude might be saying is that the ability of the club to be good in the market is included as part of the resources at Pep's disposal and is fueled by City's spending on the broader project (e.g. competent executives, forward planning, scouting, etc.). It's not just money spent on players, but the whole setup.
Click to expand...

This is a debate that has been had many times I think, it boils down to whether you think Guardiola is improving the players at his disposal or if he can only work with the best. Some of us think the former, some think the latter.
 
Taribo's Gap said:
I think part of what @Fortitude might be saying is that the ability of the club to be good in the market is included as part of the resources at Pep's disposal and is fueled by City's spending on the broader project (e.g. competent executives, forward planning, scouting, etc.). It's not just money spent on players, but the whole setup.
Click to expand...
It's so annoying because we could have closed the gap on them and won a few titles ourselves if we didn't have the clueless glazers and bankers who know nothing about football running things but now we are further away from them than ever with an absolute mess of a squad and on the brink of changing manager yet again
 
Taribo's Gap said:
I think part of what @Fortitude might be saying is that the ability of the club to be good in the market is included as part of the resources at Pep's disposal and is fueled by City's spending on the broader project (e.g. competent executives, forward planning, scouting, etc.). It's not just money spent on players, but the whole setup.
Click to expand...
Sure, there is something there. But at the same time, both Liverpool and lately Arsenal have been great in the market, building very good sides. Liverpool has also done this while spending much, much less that Chelsea and United. It's really United's own incompetence across the board that is the problem here.
 
SilentWitness said:
Why not? Won 6/7 trophies available including Uefa Cup treble and then a CL double.
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on a lot of things, including the degree of responsibility we're granting the manager, what context does the achievement exist in, etc.

For example Andre Villas-Boas won 4 out of 4 titles with FC Porto in his lone season in charge, including winning the league unbeaten and being the youngest manager to ever win the Europa League.
Is this equally as impressive an achievement, if not more so? Maybe it is. But we know Villas-Boas wasn't a very good manager and Mourinho was, so we might see the achievements differently.

The major achievement of Mourinho with Porto was winning the Champions League. He deserves a lot of credit for that but the context in which it happened lessens it, IMO. It was a freak year where all four CL semifinalists were 'smaller' (Deportivo la Coruña, Monaco, Chelsea, Porto).
 
criticalanalysis said:
To be fair, I don't think many are arguing Guardiola isn't a great manager. They are simply implying Guardiola isn't as undisputed GOAT or as clear cut great as some think he is because of his unlimited resources at City.

As for your last line, to paint a clearer picture, we should add some comparable real life context to the starting point at which Guardiola would have been a manager at Utd:

He would have been working under Glazers/Woodward where he'll need at least a season or two of really good transfer windows to get the team playing the way he wants. He'd have to make sure every single one nails it, because he won't get to replace them and he needs to make sure Utd achieve top four regularly.
He would be facing against a City side (with unlimited resources) and a really top manager or their replacements in all of his seasons at Utd.
He would also be facing Klopp's Liverpool team and the league title challenging Chelsea and/or Arsenal teams too. Not to mention your Spurs, Villas, Newcastles etc.

Would he have a good chance of winning us a title? Yes because he is a great manager. Would be it as a certain as how he's done it at City with the above conditions? Hell no. Would he be winning 6 titles and 1 CL against those other teams/clubs and managers? You'd have to be in dream land to think he could replicate that or get as close/dominant, which is the crux of how 'great' are his managerial achievements.
Click to expand...

It's not only this but the fact had Pep signed with United he would have had no backroom Barca staff to handle all the recruiting and whatnot, let alone the continuity built previously. He would have had to run both the football ops side and be the manager. This is where United have failed managers the most post SAF. And honestly, the ownership should have brought in a proper modern football operations side with a DOF to work alongside SAF in his latter years to lessen the pressure on his shoulders and begin the inevitable transition post SAF. Now, perhaps SAF would have balked at this and that's his right, but any future manager would have likely needed such as he had likely been under this format at previous clubs, like Pep.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
City's enormous financial advantages obtained through irregularities are a black mark against them, for sure. I just think the influence of this is overstated.

City under Guardiola have done an excellent job at signing players and having them perform. The majority of their signings range from hits to solid. There's only been a few flops. It's a better record than clubs with money, such as Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, or Barcelona have. If they were signing the most obvious superstars that'd be easy to dismiss as a consequence of access to money, but they aren't. They sign what looks to me like a normal amount of players to replenish their squad in a normal way.

The way people talk about it, you'd think they signed 15 players per season and moved on the 12 that flopped.
Click to expand...

The irregularities are what thrust City into a perennial challenger instead of teetering between League One and the occasional EPL promotion. Pep would never have even known City existed if not for the 2008 vanity franchise act planting its flag in the remains of what was formerly known as Man City FC . He only came to the club due to the massive financial clout offered to him. Anything thereafter is solely down to this reason and thus the financial influence renders all matters faux. Pep would have remained at Bayern much longer if not for City's financial influence. This is quite obvious to anyone.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
I suppose it depends on a lot of things, including the degree of responsibility we're granting the manager, what context does the achievement exist in, etc.

For example Andre Villas-Boas won 4 out of 4 titles with FC Porto in his lone season in charge, including winning the league unbeaten and being the youngest manager to ever win the Europa League.
Is this equally as impressive an achievement, if not more so? It is. But we know Villas-Boas wasn't a very good manager and Mourinho was, so we might see the achievements differently.

The major achievement of Mourinho with Porto was winning the Champions League. He deserves a lot of credit for that but the context in which it happened lessens it, IMO. It was a freak year where all four CL semifinalists were 'smaller' (Deportivo la Coruña, Monaco, Chelsea, Porto).
Click to expand...

Perhaps, yes, but I suppose you could then use the next season for Porto. When AVB left they were still in a good place and won the title again with only one loss. After Mourinho they were terrible in the next season. He also backed up his initial treble by winning a CL double whereas AVB left.

You're right though that context does make it tricky but I think there are arguments from all angles that you could use to put Mourinho ahead of Pep in a stand alone achievement at a club and then vice versa. It can go either way.
 
Re: City,

I think it's worth remembering that way back in 2010 or so, the common critique of Guardiola was that he could only implement his style of football effectively at Barcelona. The style relied heavily on homegrown players who'd been taught the passing game at La Masía since they were ten years old or so. You could not replicate that elsewhere as you could not sign the new Xavi.

It turns out this was wrong. He moved to Bayern, then City, and has been able to implement his style of football (with variations and evolutions) with players who were not taught the passing game at La Masía since they were ten years old. In fact he has rarely signed anyone from his previous sides.

City's financial "advantages" are a real thing, but criticizing Guardiola for them represents a shift of the goalposts, as there is a massive difference between "training someone at La Masía since they are a child" and "signing a great player from Benfica."
 
Last edited:
MrMarcello said:
The irregularities are what thrust City into a perennial challenger instead of teetering between League One and the occasional EPL promotion. Pep would never have even known City existed if not for the 2008 vanity franchise act planting its flag in the remains of what was formerly known as Man City FC . He only came to the club due to the massive financial clout offered to him. Anything thereafter is solely down to this reason and thus the financial influence renders all matters faux. Pep would have remained at Bayern much longer if not for City's financial influence. This is quite obvious to anyone.
Click to expand...

Yes there is no doubt that City's financial irregularities are a huge advantage to their success. The biggest advantage these financial irregularities have given them is the chance to sign Pep Guardiola.
 
Fortitude said:
Your attempts to normalise Guardiola are literally a nonsense. Even in this post, which you believe to be a counter. Relative to his resources, his failings in Europe are just as bad.
Click to expand...

Of course nonsense for you, as your "resources" arguments and reducing Pep's impact to only "resources" is fully destroyed not only in my post but in other people's posts.

Pep's teams never went out in a group stage or pre-group stage in an embarrassing fashion (and to teams outside top-5 leagues), I don't even think his teams went out before the QFs. And, when they lose, they almost always dominate. SAF's record is way worse in the UCL, that's why outside the UK, he is not rated as much (even in this United forum, there is not a consensus).
 
Last edited:
Iker Quesadillas said:
Re: City,

I think it's worth remembering that way back in 2010 or so, the common critique of Guardiola was that he could only implement his style of football effectively at Barcelona. The style relied heavily on homegrown players who'd been taught the passing game at La Masía since they were ten years old or so. You could not replicate that elsewhere as you could not sign the new Xavi.

It turns out this was wrong. He moved to Bayern, then City, and has been able to implement his style of football (with variations and evolutions) with players who were not taught the passing game at La Masía since they were ten years old. In fact he has rarely signed anyone from his previous sides.

City's financial "advantages" are a real thing, but criticizing Guardiola for them represents a shift of the goalposts, as there is a massive difference between "training someone at La Masía since they are a child" and "signing a great player from Benfica."
Click to expand...
I think I read somewhere that he's never signed a former player. He's managed former players (like Thiago) but he's never actively sought to work with the same players ever again.
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
Heavily agree.

That said, their success is still heavily and massively tainted by the charges.

But their squad isn't full of all-timers.

If you made a XI of Pep's teams, not a single City player would get in it.
Click to expand...
Without a doubt. I see their situation like having a top restaurant in one of the best and most popular spots in the city. The resources put in the restaurant itself from equipment to the personel they hired requires nothing in my eyes more than what 3 or 4 other PL teams and another 3 or 4 European teams can afford. Where they have a dodgy advantage is getting to that spot in the first place. You can question and rightly so how the owners got the deal for such a good spot that enabled them to attract the best in class. But you can't question the performance of the people they attracted because those people didn't have themselves more resources to produce than say us, or Chelsea and a few others.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
No. But it's a squad (from his second season or thereabouts) comprised of pretty much two separate XIs capable of challenging.

It's miles and miles off Clough or Alonso.

And that incredible squad depth doesn't have anything to do with Pep's ability as a tactician, a man manager...or anything else directly attributable to him.

Some might call it a cheat code.

(You could still be a great coach/a great tactician even if you're essentially playing with a cheat code enabled - that's not the point. But the cheat code is kinda hard to ignore if you're assessing the man in an all-time context.)
Click to expand...
That's thing though, I don't think Pep had a cheat code because I don't think his squad stands out when you compare it to few other squads in the last decade or so. There have been few equal squads and definitely 2 or 3 better ones. The cheat code applies to how they jumped from nobody to be in a position where they can compete with the elite. That's what the charges are for and should be rightly investigated. What Pep has to work with however at City is nothing that few other clubs couldn't buy. In fact, they missed out on more players to us and Chelsea than players they snapped from under their rivals' noses.
 
Mourinho's reputation as a manager is sullied from being sacked 6 different times, many of them with the club in disarray or in bad circumstances. If you compare that to Guardiola who has left and will leave each club on his own terms, or even Klopp is the same. That's worth something, making a legacy where you go. It's a black mark on Mourinho's career. Also to spend 25 years in management and fail to stay anywhere longer than 3 years before everyone got sick of you. No ability to renew a team, which puts him a level below Fergie, Guardiola and others who have been able to adapt and make multiple teams.

I think Mourinho vs Guardiola was genuinely a decent debate about 5 years ago, but now it's not really worth entertaining.
 
KeanoMagicHat said:
Mourinho's reputation as a manager is sullied from being sacked 6 different times, many of them with the club in disarray or in bad circumstances. If you compare that to Guardiola who has left and will leave each club on his own terms, or even Klopp is the same. That's worth something, making a legacy where you go. It's a black mark on Mourinho's career. Also to spend 25 years in management and fail to stay anywhere longer than 3 years before everyone got sick of you. No ability to renew a team, which puts him a level below Fergie, Guardiola and others who have been able to adapt and make multiple teams.

I think Mourinho vs Guardiola was genuinely a decent debate about 5 years ago, but now it's not really worth entertaining.
Click to expand...
It tells you everything you need to know that he’s been available for some time now and made no secret of wanting to work again and yet, no takers. This is despite so many clubs in Europe looking for a manager. Bayern have been turned down by everyone and still didn’t entertain him. Compare that to Klopp or Pep if they’re available.

Mourinho’s impact and legacy on the game is undeniable. He was and will always be one of the most prominent characters we have seen in European football. His tactical expertise and in game management is second to none in my opinion. Not to mention that he can the most charismatic charmer out there when he so pleases. But his shortcomings are just too significant to put him at the very, very top.
 
Theonas said:
That's thing though, I don't think Pep had a cheat code because I don't think his squad stands out when you compare it to few other squads in the last decade or so. There have been few equal squads and definitely 2 or 3 better ones. The cheat code applies to how they jumped from nobody to be in a position where they can compete with the elite. That's what the charges are for and should be rightly investigated. What Pep has to work with however at City is nothing that few other clubs couldn't buy. In fact, they missed out on more players to us and Chelsea than players they snapped from under their rivals' noses.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think it’s less about Pep having a cheat code and more City having one. Had Chelsea or United given the same resources they’ve given their Managers over the last 8 years to Pep, they’d have probably won 6 league titles as well.
 
Daydreamer said:
Agreed. I think it’s less about Pep having a cheat code and more City having one. Had Chelsea or United given the same resources they’ve given their Managers over the last 8 years to Pep, they’d have probably won 6 league titles as well.
Click to expand...

You could argue that Pep is the cheat code. Despite all their great players, he is their star really. He is the one who has won 12 league titles in 15 years. City's financial doping/irregularities have allowed them to keep him, who is their most prized asset.
 
Daydreamer said:
Agreed. I think it’s less about Pep having a cheat code and more City having one. Had Chelsea or United given the same resources they’ve given their Managers over the last 8 years to Pep, they’d have probably won 6 league titles as well.
Click to expand...

Man Utd has the highest netspend in the last decade. Chelsea spent silly during Mourinho's 1st stint.
 
KeanoMagicHat said:
You could argue that Pep is the cheat code. Despite all their great players, he is their star really. He is the one who has won 12 league titles in 15 years. City's financial doping/irregularities have allowed them to keep him, who is their most prized asset.
Click to expand...
Who are the real great players under Pep at City? Many of them had doubts about their abilities before they got with Pep or just seen to good players very few were considered greats Pre Pep
 
Fergie for me as his City team are boring as feck.
Would like to see Pep manage an underdog and turn them into a powerhouse.
He is a great manager though.
 
SilentWitness said:
I think you could argue though that what Mourinho did from 02-03 to 03-04 with Porto as a stand alone achievement at a club is more impressive than any of stand alone achievements of Pep at any club.
Click to expand...
I don't think any one achievement could be compared to consistency. We have plenty of people achieving one off great things. Ranieri's with Leicester is probably the best, maybe ever in English football. Yet that doesn't put Ranieri among elite managers. I am not diminishing Mourinho here at all as I think he is one of the best of his generation and will retire a legend for at least two of his former clubs. But his status for me is because he has done it over at least 10 years. Many others have had great 1 or 2 seasons spells and only the true greats do it over the span of at least a decade, that's why the latter is more indicative of quality than the former.
 
Gazautd18 said:
Fergie for me as his City team are boring as feck.
Would like to see Pep manage an underdog and turn them into a powerhouse.
He is a great manager though.
Click to expand...
Every single person who is against Pep says this, over and over again, but there are circumstances that led to him not starting at the bottom which are nothing to do with him (good players get big jobs faster, especially at clubs where they are legends, Zidane, Lampard etc.)

But the question is, why does he have to do something he's never done (through no fault of his own) and no one else does? Why doesn't Fergie have to manage outside of Britain in a country where he doesn't initially speak the language and has to learn a completely different set of customs (footballing and otherwise)? Do people think this is easy?

Why doesn't Ancelotti have to win more than one league title in a row somewhere? Why doesn't Mourinho have to stay in a job longer than 3 years?

The other thing that is annoying is continuing assumption that Pep couldn't actually manage an underdog to success. Everyone acts like they know that he couldn't, when in reality they have no idea.
 
It's a question that can never be answered. What could Fergie have done with Messi, that Munich team and with unlimited resources at City?

Likewise Mourinho, Wenger, Lippi or any of the other managerial greats?

He has however done exceedingly well with the opportunities he has had.
 
I don't know about all time but he's the best in the modern era. Ancelotti is not far behind him.
 
Kwabs said:
Every single person who is against Pep says this, over and over again, but there are circumstances that led to him not starting at the bottom which are nothing to do with him (good players get big jobs faster, especially at clubs where they are legends, Zidane, Lampard etc.)

But the question is, why does he have to do something he's never done (through no fault of his own) and no one else does? Why doesn't Fergie have to manage outside of Britain in a country where he doesn't initially speak the language and has to learn a completely different set of customs (footballing and otherwise)? Do people think this is easy?

Why doesn't Ancelotti have to win more than one league title in a row somewhere? Why doesn't Mourinho have to stay in a job longer than 3 years?
Click to expand...
It would be held against them if someone would claim them to be goat.

There is no goat, it's as simple as that.

((There's only D10S, but that's another story.))
 
HisNameIsEarl said:
It would be held against them if someone would claim them to be goat.

There is no goat, it's as simple as that.

((There's only D10S, but that's another story.))
Click to expand...
I agree. But every manager has something in their resume that you can criticise, no one ticks every box. That's my point. I think with Pep, there is a lot of focus in this thread on what he hasn't done and not enough understanding re the difficulty of what he has done.
 
HisNameIsEarl said:
It would be held against them if someone would claim them to be goat.

There is no goat, it's as simple as that.

((There's only D10S, but that's another story.))
Click to expand...
If he does that, something else would be created.

He didn't win by bringing a team from lower division to win the CL, he had to buy players why can't he homegrow everyone
 
Pep is looking a bit bloated around the face and neck these days. I hope he's watching his sodium intake and drinking plenty of water.
 
"United didn't deserve it"

Finds it so hard to be magnanimous in these circumstances, doesn't he.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.