No……..it really is that simple, he hasn’t had to yield a team or club from nothing, had to change a culture and break a 26 year slide. Yes he’s a very good manager, but would he have been able to do what SAF did with the pressure mounted on him. Mid enough to have been following United pre SAF, and the knives were out then.
Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?
- Thread starter Irrational.
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) review both the Everton and Bodø/Glimt victories at Old Trafford. Listen to the guys discuss 2 wins and 7 goals in the last week, analyse of the Amorim formation, focus on Amad and how he is playing, and also take a look at Hojlund, Rashford & Zirkzee – who starts v Arsenal?
So Ranieiri took over a 14th placed team in July, by May he won the league, Klopp took over Liverpool in October and ended 21points behind Ranieri
EPL title wins: Ranieri with Leicester 1, Klopp with Liverpool 1
When Klopp joined Liverpool, they were 3 points behind Leicester
He was in Liverpool for 7 seasons won 1 title
Last edited:
But would SAF have been able to move from Barca to Munich to Man City and achieve what Pep achieved? I’m not saying the answer is no, but I think it’s naive at best to assume he would have been an automatic success. Football doesn’t work like that.
For what it’s worth, I’d still edge towards Ferguson, and perhaps Ancelotti, ahead of Pep, but you have to be careful not to position the goalposts in such a way that it makes the guy who you clearly want to win, end up winning.
No chance. He is one of the best but not “the greatest”. No way he’d be able to go to Scotland and take over someone like Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen, Dundee or basically anyone outside the Old Firm & break the Old Firm domination in Scotttish football, never mind winning a European trophy with one of those clubs whilst doing so.
This entire thread is an exercise in that.
In understand the argument that Pep went from Spain to Germany to England and was successful BUT having a blank cheque book has been a part of that success. He is an absolute brilliant manager but he can’t lace SAF’s boots!
I mean, that’s a fair point!
It's not a stick to beat him with, it's just a simple fact, his success has required him to spend more money than any other manager in the history of football. Therefore, being the most successful manager in the history of football should be considered par.
Pep taken over teams with strong foundations and existing talent. At Barca, he inherited Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Puyol, etc. At Bayern, he inherited a dominant and treble winning team from Jup Heyncks and fail to win Champions League. At 116 Man City, he inherited players like Kompany, Aguero, Silva, Fernandinho and De Bruyne and spent vast amounts of money. I dont consider him the greatest due to the tainted nature of his achievements at City. Let him go and achieve success with less favored teams to be considered the greatest. I consider Sir Alex, Ancelotti and Cruyff greater due to their sustained success over longer periods and their ability to build multiple successful teams.
Fergie left his mark on United (one of the biggest clubs in the world) as a manager. But Pep has left his mark on football and how it's played in General, which is why he's the better coach. It was also clear to see who was better tactically when they faced each other.
Ancellotti basically won everything he's won with big clubs and big players and less expansive style of football, and Pep has won more titles than him in a shorter period.
If having resources was all it took to win and stay on top, Mourinho won't be where he is right now.
As I said, it's a result of him being manager of top top aspiring clubs for the last 15 years. Literally any manager who was in the same position would have spent similar. Why hasn't there been any other manager that managed top top clubs for that period of time?
That just isn't true though, Pep isn't the only manager who's spent a lot of time at top clubs, there are managers with longer careers at the top level who can't touch his spending.
Even so, whether other managers would have done the same is irrelevant, the point is that his success has relied on being able to blow other clubs in the same league out of the water financially.
Which other managers has spent the last 15 years in top top clubs (clubs that are expected to compete at all fronts every season)? I can't think of a single one. The closest I can think of is Carlo, but he had to spend a number of years at Napoli and Everton in between top jobs.
How is it irrelevant? It's literally the reason he's spent so much, because top top clubs spend much. And when he was at Barca they certainly didn't blow Real Madrid out of the water financially. He did however win every title there was to win for a Spanish team within the first 18 months of his appointment.
I'd written out a post disputing your post, but there's no point. Why he spent the money is meaningless, the fact is that he's had to spend that much to achieve success, and sustained success is to be expected with resources that dwarf everyone else.
The likes of Klopp have constructed brilliant teams on comparatively shoestring budgets, which to me is more impressive than doing so with unlimited budgets.
Why not just answer the question I asked? It's only meaningless to you because it needs to be for whatever your point here is. In reality it isn't.
Klopp's work at Liverpool was incredible, as far as I am concerned he's the second best manager in the world right now. But he has still only won a fraction of what Pep has won.
What was your question? Who's been at a top club for the same amount of time as Pep? Off the top of my head both Ancelotti and Mourinho have similar amounts of time at huge spending clubs - the former with Italian clubs when all the money was there, the latter for the Chelsea oil boom, both at Madrid. Neither can get near Pep for spending.
Klopp's won a fraction of what Pep has won, with a fraction of the resources. If you swapped them over, Klopp would win more with Pep's unlimited resources than Pep would win with Klopp's comparatively very limited resources.
Mourinho is fairly closein total spenditure, but he also hasn't managed a proper top club since he got the boot from United almost 6 years ago. Considering transfer fees has been off the charts especially the past around 10 years, I'd say it's expected that he is behind. He also hasn't won as much, as it stands.
Carlo is third in that, and he did spend a number of years recently with lesser clubs as well. Sure, he has managed a longer time, transfer fees when he was in Italy was nothing like what they are now though, so it's not really a fair comparision. He's also, overall, less decorated than Pep.
As far as I can tell by quickly scrolling through transfers of different teams in the leagues they've been in, it seems they all have been the top spenders roughly the same amound of seasons. Not a big difference, at least.
Again with the swapping, obviously what you say is true but the other way around is demonstrably true as well.
Agreed.
If not for his decline, I would also have Mourinho in this list. Took Porto to back to back european trophies, won Chelsea their first title in 50 years against a dominant United and an invicible Arsenal. One of the few managers to defend a PL title(the other 2 being SAF and Pep). Took Inter to a historic treble stopping that invincible Barca on the way. Rejuvenated a stagnating Real, making them challenge Pep's Barca and transforming them from a 1/8 CL knockout round team, to a team that goes deep into the competition. Won Chelsea another title upon his return.
It's a shame his career went the way it did, because prime Mourinho was in the GOAT conversation.
For me though SAF>Ancelotti>Prime Mourinho>Pep in that order.
Carlo is less decorated than Pep, but has won the Champions League more. Pep has underachieved in Europe with Bayern, who had won the treble when he took over, and with City, where he has a bottomless pit of money and they start every season as favourites.
As for your last sentence, I've already stated that Pep is the best manager out there if you have you have a more money and a better team than anyone else in the league. But like I said, the likes of Klopp would have had slightly less success than Pep with the same backing, whereas Pep would have had way less than Klopp in Klopp's underdog shoes.
Of course he's not. He dreams of being the manager Sir Alex was.
And Carlo clearly underachieved in Milan and I'd say his first stint in Real when it came to league titles. The fact that he's only won one more league title than Champions League is not to his advantage I'd say. So they both have 'underachieved' partly.
Way less? Klopp managed one league and one CL during his 8 full years at Pool. He had an incredible team for large part of that time. I'd agree that Pep wouldn't have done as well in the CL as Klopp, but I think he would have done at least as good in the league. But we never will know, because I doubt Klopp will ever take a job where he is expected to win all the time nor are there any reason for Pep not to take jobs that gives him the best chance of succeeding.
Were these spendings adjusted for inflation and current player prices?
I will never consider Pep as the greatest. Has he ever take a struggling club to greatest? Barcelona, Bayern Munich and City. Barcelona and Bayern are great clubs that will do well in that era regardless who was the manager. City has been funded by oil money and the previous regime was buying the best talent before Pep arrival. Pep continues to spend money like nobody's business. How can he be the greatest manager? Never in my mind. He can be the greatest coach but never manager.
I agree with you that there's no reason for Pep not to continue with City where he enjoys a giant advantage over every other club in the world. Unless they're actually punished for their cheating, but I find that unlikely.
But without doing so, there's no evidence that Pep is capable of winning things with anything less than the perfect set of circumstances.
This point here. Pep takes jobs where he is expected to win immediately, Klopp takes job that can afford him time to build a team
So Pep never won with an underdog but then you rate Ancellotti higher than Prime Mourinho and Pep? When has Ancellotti won anything with a team that's not a top team?
And you give Mourinho credit for rejuvenating Madrid but won't give Pep credit for doing so with Barcelona and winning every title in his first season? Do you realize your bias here?
And Mourinho at Inter is not the underdog story that you're claiming it to be either. Inter were winning back to back titles in Italy before Mourinho arrived, and sacked Mancini because they were underperforming in CL and felt that they should be competing for the title with the investments and the players they had, so they went and got Mourinho.
When it's said and done out of the coaches you listed, the only one who has influenced the way the way the game is been played is Pep. Which is the main reason for him being in the conversation of the greatest, not only because of the titles he has won.
On here he will never be even in the top 10.
Outside of here, he has a genuine chance of being in the top three of all time.
Outside of here, he has a genuine chance of being in the top three of all time.
That Barca team won the CL 3 years prior to Pep taking other. In the year preceding his appointment it reached the semi final of the CL where they lost to our 2008 team which literally parked the bus for other 120 minutes in that tie. If anyone deserves credit for rejuvenating Barca, it is Rijkaard and Ronaldinho.
Pep's impact, while incredible is still overstated. Barca's core Busquets-Xavi-Iniesta dominated international football at the exact same time without a prime Messi or Pep. Both Barca's and Span's dominance coincided with the decline of this trio. As a matter of fact, Pep won't come close to another European trophy for another 12 years, hence why I rate both SAF and Ancelotti higher than him, since both of them could do it with vastly different squads, in different eras and both of them had far fewer resources, and inspite of it their European trophies weren't that far apart.
As for Mourinho's time at Inter. I simply stated that Inter haven't been close to winning a CL in a couple of decades until Mourinho took other. While they were winning title after title, it was mostly a formality since Italy was struck with the Calciopoli scandal at the time which saw Juve relegated and Milan had points deducted. At the same time we saw a massive exodus of players from Serie A, from which they never recovered.
As for Pep, it is very difficult to trully judge his managerial ability, since he never managed teams on the decline or that needed a massive rebuild like SAF, Mourinho or Ancelotti for that matter. Every time he took a job, everything was tailored for his success, and he delivers for the most part. While he does establish some fenomenal records, his european record is very lackluster.
Guys like Busby, Shankly and Stein are right up there. And has Pep dominated Europe like Bob Paisley?
Mainly because of the cheating allegations.
There's plenty of Liverpool fans who still respect Sir Alex and rate him highly even though they hate him.
The respect is there because SAF earned that success legitimately.
Guardiola doesn't get that same respect around here because of the cheating allegations at City, and the alleged referee bribing at Barcelona.
And we will probably never know what Klopp would do in a team where the pressure is on from day one. But yeah, we're not going to get anywhere here.
Now you're just giving credit to Ancelotti and Mourinho for things they never did (successfully rebuilding teams) while not giving Pep credit for that which he actually did (even though that prospect isn't difficult at City). Ancelotti hasn't won anything of note where he hasn't had the most resources in the league either, so that is just blatantly untrue as well. Mourinho obviously has incredible success against the odds in Portugal, but that's about it as in terms of overall success he is well behind. SAF is ahead of all of them in terms of achievements.
There are likely genuine reasons to consider Mourinho and Ancelotti above Pep, these are not them however.
Amongst the players that played the 2006 final, only 3 were present in the 2009 final.
Busquets wasn't in the Spanish NT in 2008, he was still in la masia. Also when Italy won the Euros, I didn't see anyone calling players like Georginho and Chiesa world beaters.
As for his european record being lackluster, only Ancellotti has more CL trophies than Pep. And Pep is the Coach that has participated in the highest number of semi finals.
They were bottom of the table from matchday 13 to 31. 22 of 41 points in the last 9 games!
SAF was the cream of the crop, those types are few and far between. I will still stand by my comment though, Pep has never managed outside of a big club with big money. His tactics are sound when you can afford the best players you can get, however he has never been tested outside of that.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
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
Why is that the test for the best manager though? Why do you think that matters so much? You don't see top managers going for the smaller teams, why would they?
I always like Mourinho, he was able to do some pretty awesome things. He walked into Ed Woodward who in my estimation is the single reason for the downfall over the last decade. Why oh why he brought back Pogba is anyone's guess and really showed the lack of understanding on how you build winners.
Regardless, SAF is the legend, what he did and how he built the team using English talent for the core, who came up through the system, then sprinkled international talent in, not just any international talent, some of the best in the world has never been repeated.
I will say one commonality amongst these individuals that I do not see as much today, they have an emotional will to win and accept nothing else. That becomes contagious and is a hallmark of a great manager. The ability to make the right decisions at key times and get the most out each and every player. None of them accept 2nd best and you either buy in or you're out. We have seen Arteta use that same philosophy and clean out the dead wood rot at Arsenal, hence why they are where they are today.
Put any of those managers we have been mentioning in charge of United and I really think this team would be sitting in the top 4 and challenging. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Klopp at Manchester next season. Remember where you heard that!
Last edited:
Because part of the test of a really excellent manager is how well they can make do with what they have when their options are limited.
Sir Alex was hamstrung with the Glazer's neglect and penny pinching bullshit for years, yet he still managed to be highly successful.
We spent a lot with the glaziers, this penny pinching has been debunked many times, the buys were just not good.
City are simply very good at picking players. They almost never go for the big or expensive players.
When Guardiola was managing Barcelona, people questioned whether he would ever be able to achieve success without players who'd been molded in La Masia and taught this playing style since they were children.
He was able to.
The goalposts then shifted.
He was able to.
The goalposts then shifted.
I think you could argue that Ancelotti is successfully guiding Real Madrid through a rebuild right now. Most of the old guard has been successfully phased out under his management.
Of course that has also happened under Guardiola at City.