Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

RedRocket9908 said:
Klopp got Liverpool to a Champions League final on his first attempt, Pep needed 6 years and a ridiculous amount of money to get City to one.
Click to expand...
It also took him 4 years and buying the most expensive defender and GK and Fabinho before winning anything with Liverpool.

Klopp also should have won more with the team he had.
 
footballistic orgasm said:
It also took him 4 years and buying the most expensive defender and GK and Fabinho before winning anything with Liverpool.

Klopp also should have won more with the team he had.
Click to expand...
He was up against a city team that could routinely get 90+ points. The fact he even got one premier league is impressive.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Pep really does seem to be rapidly approaching Lance Armstrong levels of villainy.

Both immensely talented, but with a penchant for ‘win at all costs’ having no delineating line between pushing a boundary and outright cheating.

They both seem to have a sense of internal ethics that whitewashes all their behaviour. A kind of ‘everyone else is doing all they can do to beat me, so I will too’. I don’t know if it’s knowing reframing, or they’re just broken people.

The odd doublethink in his Catalan independence comments while working for Abu Dhabi, his use of PEDs and the resulting ban, his forever pot-kettle-black comments on other teams.

As with Lance, he’s been a soldier of fortune. Wherever gives him the best chance of winning, he’ll be. They’ll remain an arms length away from the mechanics and just focus on the winning. At times it’s been impossible to hold that line. Lance would deny doping in pressers. Pep gets shirty when asked anything non football related. Lance would routinely say ‘Im the most tested athlete in sport’. Pep will say ‘I focus on the football, and let the other people at my club handle everything else’.

Both have this myopic focus on winning as if their wins can’t be tainted by anything that doesn’t happen on the field of play. That their success isn’t massively assisted by criminality in the background.

Lance is undoubtedly one of the greatest cyclists of all time. He got to have all the adulation, stage and race wins, money and fame. He’s sitting pretty, richer than Christ surrounded by 7 yellow jerseys. Nothing can colour his career bad in his eyes. Even his contrition looks sociopathic.

Pep may end up looking exactly the same. He cheated as a player via the use of drugs. Barcelona are under investigation for referee payments. Rumours of doping amongst his playing squad look paper thin or conspiratorial at times, but the smell is there. His huge disputes with Bayerns doctor seems to fly in the face of player welfare. And, as The Times once said, he seems to have his hand on the tiller of a pirate ship at City.

Lance knew he was cheating. Pep knows that City cheat. It’d be a shame if all of Pep’s success was tainted by investigations held years after the trophies had been won, but I really think his house of cards is going to topple in exactly the same manner as Armstrongs.
Click to expand...
What I struggle to understand is the nandrolone positive . Anyone who was him play, or saw his wholly unimpressive physique, knows that was a million miles away from the impacts you would expect to see from using anabolic steroids. Guardiola deliberately using nandrolone would be the equivalent of the 17-year-old pencil-neck gym newbie going straight on the roids rather than doing some hard graft to realise quick gains. Obviously there were a spate of positive tests around the same time and it has never been satisfactorily explained why and what exactly took place. I appreciate the nandrolone positive carries a lot of weight in your argument, but I'm struggling to connect it together.
 
This OP should be banned on a United forum.

Greatest manager of all times is Sir Alex. Being a Pep fanboy and denying that fact is a clear disqualification from being a United fan :D
 
Gio said:
What I struggle to understand is the nandrolone positive . Anyone who was him play, or saw his wholly unimpressive physique, knows that was a million miles away from the impacts you would expect to see from using anabolic steroids. Guardiola deliberately using nandrolone would be the equivalent of the 17-year-old pencil-neck gym newbie going straight on the roids rather than doing some hard graft to realise quick gains. Obviously there were a spate of positive tests around the same time and it has never been satisfactorily explained why and what exactly took place. I appreciate the nandrolone positive carries a lot of weight in your argument, but I'm struggling to connect it together.
Click to expand...

It’s just testosterone. Keep your levels as high as possible and recover quicker, train harder. It’s all just tear and repair. It would have seismic effects on a footballer at the top level.

Cyclists use(d) it loads and they get their weight carried by a bike.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Pep really does seem to be rapidly approaching Lance Armstrong levels of villainy.

Both immensely talented, but with a penchant for ‘win at all costs’ having no delineating line between pushing a boundary and outright cheating.

They both seem to have a sense of internal ethics that whitewashes all their behaviour. A kind of ‘everyone else is doing all they can do to beat me, so I will too’. I don’t know if it’s knowing reframing, or they’re just broken people.

The odd doublethink in his Catalan independence comments while working for Abu Dhabi, his use of PEDs and the resulting ban, his forever pot-kettle-black comments on other teams.

As with Lance, he’s been a soldier of fortune. Wherever gives him the best chance of winning, he’ll be. They’ll remain an arms length away from the mechanics and just focus on the winning. At times it’s been impossible to hold that line. Lance would deny doping in pressers. Pep gets shirty when asked anything non football related. Lance would routinely say ‘Im the most tested athlete in sport’. Pep will say ‘I focus on the football, and let the other people at my club handle everything else’.

Both have this myopic focus on winning as if their wins can’t be tainted by anything that doesn’t happen on the field of play. That their success isn’t massively assisted by criminality in the background.

Lance is undoubtedly one of the greatest cyclists of all time. He got to have all the adulation, stage and race wins, money and fame. He’s sitting pretty, richer than Christ surrounded by 7 yellow jerseys. Nothing can colour his career bad in his eyes. Even his contrition looks sociopathic.

Pep may end up looking exactly the same. He cheated as a player via the use of drugs. Barcelona are under investigation for referee payments. Rumours of doping amongst his playing squad look paper thin or conspiratorial at times, but the smell is there. His huge disputes with Bayerns doctor seems to fly in the face of player welfare. And, as The Times once said, he seems to have his hand on the tiller of a pirate ship at City.

Lance knew he was cheating. Pep knows that City cheat. It’d be a shame if all of Pep’s success was tainted by investigations held years after the trophies had been won, but I really think his house of cards is going to topple in exactly the same manner as Armstrongs.
Click to expand...
You hope this will happen, but it won't. Also, Pep doesn't have the whole 'cancer messiah' bit, so it's not exactly an accurate analogy, because that was a huge part of Armstrong's shtick.
 
CoopersDream said:
As it stands, Pep has won a lot more with the resources he's had than Klopp has won with the resources he's had.
Click to expand...

Well of course, because Pep has had more resources than any other manager in the history of football.

That isn't an exaggeration, even with City's creative accounting to understate their spending, he's the highest spending manager ever.

There's no question that he's done an excellent job of making those advantages count; he's tailor made to manage a team with significant personnel and financial advantages over everyone else, but for me Klopp building multiple brilliant teams with limited resources in difficult circumstances is more impressive than Pep doing so with unlimited resources.
 
Kwabs said:
You hope this will happen, but it won't. Also, Pep doesn't have the whole 'cancer messiah' bit, so it's not exactly an accurate analogy, because that was a huge part of Armstrong's shtick.
Click to expand...

Armstrongs cancer smokescreen is akin to Peps Catalan freedom fighters rosette, while working for a nation that jails and/or kills political dissidents.

But anyway. I’m not saying they’re the same. I’m saying he’s sat on a ticking time bomb the way Lance was for a decade.

We’re just a judgment away from a journo as brave as Kimmige calling City ‘a cancer of the sport’ to make my comparison more accurate.
 
The Hilton said:
Well of course, because Pep has had more resources than any other manager in the history of football.

That isn't an exaggeration, even with City's creative accounting to understate their spending, he's the highest spending manager ever.

There's no question that he's done an excellent job of making those advantages count; he's tailor made to manage a team with significant personnel and financial advantages over everyone else, but for me Klopp building multiple brilliant teams with limited resources in difficult circumstances is more impressive than Pep doing so with unlimited reresources.
Click to expand...
He'd be the highest spending manager of all time if he went to Chelsea or United after Bayern as well. You think that's something to slag him off with, but it's just a result of him not getting fired.

As for him not being able to do what Klopp did, perhaps. But I doubt Klopp would be able to win 6 in 7 anyway.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
Armstrongs cancer smokescreen is akin to Peps Catalan freedom fighters rosette, while working for a nation that jails and/or kills political dissidents.

But anyway. I’m not saying they’re the same. I’m saying he’s sat on a ticking time bomb the way Lance was for a decade.

We’re just a judgment away from a journo as brave as Kimmige calling City ‘a cancer of the sport’ to make my comparison more accurate.
Click to expand...
Um, no it is not. Not even close. Armstrong used the fact that he had the disease to bully and silence people, and also created this false narrativeof a Superman beating the disease and going on to win 50 Tour De Frances, which 'inspired' millions of people.

No one here even cares about Catalonia (or anything happening in the Middle East, sadly), so it's hardly the case that Pep can use it for any kind of moral leverage. But I get that you are drawing the comparison because you think they're both cheats, and not suggesting that they are exactly the same.
 
He maybe GOAT or not, but if he was at United, we would all be creaming in our pants. I know few intellectually overpowered beings in caf will say, "we don't want boring Pep football at United", but that is the truth. We all are just bitter because Pep coaches the beggar side of Manchester.
 
NewGlory said:
This OP should be banned on a United forum.

Greatest manager of all times is Sir Alex. Being a Pep fanboy and denying that fact is a clear disqualification from being a United fan :D
Click to expand...
Thanks for saying what I was just thinking! What did Pep really build? He was given top teams with huge budgets and he won with them, big deal. In fact, I am sure there are many lines crossed with the light blue that will come to light and should have some of those trophies removed.
 
MiceOnMeth said:
He was up against a city team that could routinely get 90+ points. The fact he even got one premier league is impressive.
Click to expand...
Klopp had a team (in talent and in squad number) that definitely should have won more than one PL title. How did he even finish 2nd in the league? So it wasn't just Pep that was stopping him.
The Hilton said:
Well of course, because Pep has had more resources than any other manager in the history of football.

That isn't an exaggeration, even with City's creative accounting to understate their spending, he's the highest spending manager ever.

There's no question that he's done an excellent job of making those advantages count; he's tailor made to manage a team with significant personnel and financial advantages over everyone else, but for me Klopp building multiple brilliant teams with limited resources in difficult circumstances is more impressive than Pep doing so with unlimited resources.
Click to expand...
While Klopp (and Liverpool) might not have had the same budget as City, we need to stop acting like they're operating on shoestring budget or like they aren't one of the biggest teams around (even when they weren't winning before Klopp arrived).

Also winning when there's less pressure and resources, doesn't mean it can be repeated in another context with more resources and pressure.
Lord SInister said:
He maybe GOAT or not, but if he was at United, we would all be creaming in our pants. I know few intellectually overpowered beings in caf will say, "we don't want boring Pep football at United", but that is the truth. We all are just bitter because Pep coaches the beggar side of Manchester.
Click to expand...
This is very obvious. Also United would have already won more than one PL title with the same squad Mourinho and OGS had IMO, because he's a better coach than they are. And they'll most definitely have been playing a better brand of football.
Musclehead said:
Thanks for saying what I was just thinking! What did Pep really build? He was given top teams with huge budgets and he won with them, big deal. In fact, I am sure there are many lines crossed with the light blue that will come to light and should have some of those trophies removed.
Click to expand...
I'll take it you don't rate someone like Carlo Ancellotti too then?
 
Loftus Road Lad said:
I think the context of the situation is important. Pep seems to be the best in the world when he has a perfect set up and unlimited resources. I personally think Klopp is a better manager and has achieved more impressive feats. I'm sure many clubs would pick Klopp over Pep if given the option.
Click to expand...
Klopp himself would not pick Klopp above Pep. Neither Klopp’s mum would do so.
 
footballistic orgasm said:
Klopp had a team (in talent and in squad number) that definitely should have won more than one PL title. How did he even finish 2nd in the league? So it wasn't just Pep that was stopping him.

While Klopp (and Liverpool) might not have had the same budget as City, we need to stop acting like they're operating on shoestring budget or like they aren't one of the biggest teams around (even when they weren't winning before Klopp arrived).

Also winning when there's less pressure and resources, doesn't mean it can be repeated in another context with more resources and pressure.

This is very obvious. Also United would have already won more than one PL title with the same squad Mourinho and OGS had IMO, because he's a better coach than they are. And they'll most definitely have been playing a better brand of football.

I'll take it you don't rate someone like Carlo Ancellotti too then?
Click to expand...
Carlo Ancellotti was with teams such as Reggiana, Parma, Napoli and Everton. A little different than Barcelona, Bayern and City like Pep. SAF on the other hand built the team from the ground up more along the lines of Klopp. I would take Klopp over both Pep and Carlo.
 
CoopersDream said:
He'd be the highest spending manager of all time if he went to Chelsea or United after Bayern as well. You think that's something to slag him off with, but it's just a result of him not getting fired.

As for him not being able to do what Klopp did, perhaps. But I doubt Klopp would be able to win 6 in 7 anyway.
Click to expand...

Klopp has never been sacked either, but hasn't been able to spend any where near as much. Same goes for Zidane, Simeone, Enrique. It's irrelevant to the point, which is that Pep's needed to dwarf the opposition in terms of spending ability in order to achieve his success.

Klopp probably wouldn't have been quite so dominant with Pep's resources I agree, as I've said Pep's style is tailor made to make a superior team play like one. But Pep in Klopp's positions wouldn't have achieved his success, and those successes are more impressive, given they came with underdogs.
 
footballistic orgasm said:
Klopp had a team (in talent and in squad number) that definitely should have won more than one PL title. How did he even finish 2nd in the league? So it wasn't just Pep that was stopping him.

While Klopp (and Liverpool) might not have had the same budget as City, we need to stop acting like they're operating on shoestring budget or like they aren't one of the biggest teams around (even when they weren't winning before Klopp arrived).

Also winning when there's less pressure and resources, doesn't mean it can be repeated in another context with more resources and pressure.

This is very obvious. Also United would have already won more than one PL title with the same squad Mourinho and OGS had IMO, because he's a better coach than they are. And they'll most definitely have been playing a better brand of football.

I'll take it you don't rate someone like Carlo Ancellotti too then?
Click to expand...

Klopp started with a Liverpool team that was no where near the PL title, whereas Pep started with a multiple champion team that had been put together specifically for him. Klopp was able to put together a team that was on a par with Pep's City, on a much much smaller budget. There's also Klopp breaking the dominance of Bayern Munich with Dortmund. I hold those achievements as more impressive than winning with teams that are expected to win by default, even if some of those wins are more dominant.

You're suggesting Pep would have won the PL with Mou or Ole's United teams? I don't think he'd have gotten anywhere near, as the squads simply weren't equipped to play the kind of football he wants.

Of course I rate Ancelotti, just like I rate Pep, there's a rather large chasm between "greatest of all time" and "don't rate", suggesting I "don't rate" him is a pretty desperate strawman.
 
The Hilton said:
Klopp has never been sacked either, but hasn't been able to spend any where near as much. Same goes for Zidane, Simeone, Enrique. It's irrelevant to the point, which is that Pep's needed to dwarf the opposition in terms of spending ability in order to achieve his success.

Klopp probably wouldn't have been quite so dominant with Pep's resources I agree, as I've said Pep's style is tailor made to make a superior team play like one. But Pep in Klopp's positions wouldn't have achieved his success, and those successes are more impressive, given they came with underdogs.
Click to expand...
Klopp and Simeone are both among the 10 highest spending managers. And they have won nowhere near as much. Zidane has managed for like 4 seasons or something, Enrique has been managing at top level for about the same. For obvious reasons they haven't spent as much. As I said, Pep being the top spender has more to do with him being at expected top clubs for his entire career rather than being at 'underdogs' as you phrase it. Again, he'd be the top spending manager of all time if he went to Chelsea, United or even Arsenal instead of City (given that he got to spend the money those clubs have done since he came to England).
 
CoopersDream said:
Klopp and Simeone are both among the 10 highest spending managers. And they have won nowhere near as much. Zidane has managed for like 4 seasons or something, Enrique has been managing at top level for about the same. For obvious reasons they haven't spent as much. As I said, Pep being the top spender has more to do with him being at expected top clubs for his entire career rather than being at 'underdogs' as you phrase it. Again, he'd be the top spending manager of all time if he went to Chelsea, United or even Arsenal instead of City (given that he got to spend the money those clubs have done since he came to England).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - he'd be the top spending manager by going to any of those clubs instead of City because he'd spent so much previously. He was never going to join one of those clubs over City though, as they were like his previous team in that they were by far and away the wealthiest team in the league, and had a squad used to success filled with top quality players. It went one further in this case, as the squad had been assembled specifically for him over several years (with plenty of breaking of financial rules to boot).
 
Easily the greatest ever

And will statistically be the greatest ever wether folks like that or not

When you look at his honours list it looks made up
 
I rate Mourinho's career achievements over Pep's.
I think that Guardiola is an incredible manager and probably one of the GOAT managers but what he achieved, he achieved in teams that were incredibly stacked with talent and world-class players.
It's still impressive, but I've seen more impressive things.
 
Musclehead said:
Thanks for saying what I was just thinking! What did Pep really build? He was given top teams with huge budgets and he won with them, big deal. In fact, I am sure there are many lines crossed with the light blue that will come to light and should have some of those trophies removed.
Click to expand...
I mean... Pep is one of the best and definitely the best currently. He has done a lot, so I wouldn't go as far as diminishing his achievements. But when we are talking about "the best of all times", on Manchester United forum nevertheless, even insinuating Pep is bigger than Sir Alex is blasphemy :)
 
Gonçalo Motta said:
I rate Mourinho's career achievements over Pep's.
I think that Guardiola is an incredible manager and probably one of the GOAT managers but what he achieved, he achieved in teams that were incredibly stacked with talent and world-class players.
It's still impressive, but I've seen more impressive things.
Click to expand...
Mourinho went to stacked Chelsea and Madrid, he got fired from both. If coaching stacked teams was easy, Mourinho wont be at Fenebahce today
 
kaiser1 said:
Klopp was in the league that year and wasn't even close to being the closest challenger
Click to expand...
Mentioning the Conte season makes sense. But expecting Klopp to be a challenger after joining a shit Liverpool partway through the season? Damn, he must've traumatised you lot in the Bundesliga.
 
The Hilton said:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - he'd be the top spending manager by going to any of those clubs instead of City because he'd spent so much previously. He was never going to join one of those clubs over City though, as they were like his previous team in that they were by far and away the wealthiest team in the league, and had a squad used to success filled with top quality players. It went one further in this case, as the squad had been assembled specifically for him over several years (with plenty of breaking of financial rules to boot).
Click to expand...
I mean, that's not really a point. He'd be the top spending manager because the teams in PL spend so much. He spent €530m before joining City. Man United has spent about €1.6b since he joined City. Chelsea has spent €1.6b since 2020. So yeah, it'd be because of the spenditure at the club he ended up in. If you stay for a long time at one of the top spenders in England you're going to spend a lot. Again, you think it's a stick to beat him with when it's in reality more a result of him not being sacked.
 
erikcred said:
Mentioning the Conte season makes sense. But expecting Klopp to be a challenger after joining a shit Liverpool partway through the season? Damn, he must've traumatised you lot in the Bundesliga.
Click to expand...
How long did Ranieri spend at Leicester to win the EPL with the worst team in the league
 
RedRocket9908 said:
Klopp took over at Liverpool in October of that season and inherited a midtable squad
Click to expand...
Ranieri took over Leicester who barely escaped relegation in July. October was like 8 matches into the season. 30 matches to go. When Leicester was 3 points ahead of Liverpool ended topping Liverpool with 21points.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.