Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[CoopersDream]

Im not going to hold luck against managers much, even our 99 win was peppered with luck, and Barcas 09 semi final win is one of the most controversial wins in modern football and still stinks a little today- if youre going down any conspiratorial routes. Mourinhos defeat of Barca with inter, on the way to the treble was an incredible feat. You could call mourinhos porto win a freak if he didnt do it a few years later with another unfancied team- both of those CL wins put each of guardiolas in the shade, I believe any manager worth anything would have won the cl with that barca side, its also why spain won 2 euros and a world cup with that midfield trio that was once in a generation, with the bonus of messi at barca.

But the whole reason why you rate Mourinho's Inter triumph so high is because he beat Pep's Barcelona. If there had been another manager who didn't make that team great, it wouldn't have been a great achievement because of beating Barcelona. Let me ask you this: most everyone would agree that Barca peaked somewhere around 2010-2011, do you think that was because magically all their players peaked at the same time, or do you think it had something to do with Guardiola? They won twice and came to four semi's in the CL during his time there. Since then Barca managed three semi's and one title.

Anyways, while I certainly buy that Mourinho's title with Porto is a different type of achievement to what Pep has done (as he's never managed a club that isn't sort of an European powerhouse) his title with Inter gets a fair bit overhype. The treble was incredible obviously, as any such feat is, but he was hired by a team dominating in the domestic league to take them to the next level in Europe. Hardly a miracle that he did.

 

[Kwabs]

You’ve tried to denigrate others to advance Pep with either an ignorant, ill-informed post, or, a purposely antagonistic one that reduces others to footnotes.

Either way, bad angle that doesn’t serve to advance Pep.

Just doing the same.e thing that people on here do to Pep. Everything I said is a fact. Every manager has holes in their resume, that's the point.

 

[SER19]

But the whole reason why you rate Mourinho's Inter triumph so high is because he beat Pep's Barcelona. If there had been another manager who didn't make that team great, it wouldn't have been a great achievement because of beating Barcelona. Let me ask you this: most everyone would agree that Barca peaked somewhere around 2010-2011, do you think that was because magically all their players peaked at the same time, or do you think it had something to do with Guardiola? They won twice and came to four semi's in the CL during his time there. Since then Barca managed three semi's and one title.

Anyways, while I certainly buy that Mourinho's title with Porto is a different type of achievement to what Pep has done (as he's never managed a club that isn't sort of an European powerhouse) his title with Inter gets a fair bit overhype. The treble was incredible obviously, as any such feat is, but he was hired by a team dominating in the domestic league to take them to the next level in Europe. Hardly a miracle that he did.

Strange post. I absolutely don't rate inters treble highly because of who they beat in the semi final. He made them an incredible team that won the treble, yes with one very impressive display of guts and unity in the semi final.

As for the second part? It is just undeniable that most top teams have a 3-4 year spell before a refresh is needed we saw it time and again at United. 3 years after he left they reached just as high a point winning a treble with iniesta, messi, busquets and others still integral - rakitic in for xavi one of the bigger changes. Players age, teams change and he had these guys at their peak and even after this they were good enough to win a treble

To diminish mourinho for achieving at inter precisely what guardiola failed to do at bayern is also strange cherry picking

 

[CoopersDream]

As for the second part? It is just undeniable that most top teams have a 3-4 year spell before a refresh is needed we saw it time and again at United. 3 years after he left they reached just as high a point winning a treble with iniesta, messi, busquets and others still integral - rakitic in for xavi one of the bigger changes. Players age, teams change and he had these guys at their peak and even after this they were good enough to win a treble

But why is peak Barca seen as 10/11? Why did Barcelona go from finishing fourth before Pep took over, to arguably becomse the greatest club side ever just three years after? Was anything of that because of Pep?

To diminish mourinho for achieving at inter precisely what guardiola failed to do at bayern is also strange cherry picking

I didn't do that, I said it was an incredible achievement. You, however, diminished Pep achievement taking over a team finishing fourth, in dire need of a refresh, and winning all trophies available inside 18 month. Inter was dominating the domestic league, they hired Mourinho because they wanted to take the next step in Europe. I just don't agree with the idea that it was that much more of an achievement than Pep's treble. He had to beat Pep, but that's it basically.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

But why is peak Barca seen as 10/11? Why did Barcelona go from finishing fourth before Pep took over, to arguably becomse the greatest club side ever just three years after? Was anything of that because of Pep?

I didn't do that, I said it was an incredible achievement. You, however, diminished Pep achievement taking over a team finishing fourth, in dire need of a refresh, and winning all trophies available inside 18 month. Inter was dominating the domestic league, they hired Mourinho because they wanted to take the next step in Europe. I just don't agree with the idea that it was that much more of an achievement than Pep's treble. He had to beat Pep, but that's it basically.

Fourth?

 

[SER19]

But why is peak Barca seen as 10/11? Why did Barcelona go from finishing fourth before Pep took over, to arguably becomse the greatest club side ever just three years after? Was anything of that because of Pep?

I didn't do that, I said it was an incredible achievement. You, however, diminished Pep achievement taking over a team finishing fourth, in dire need of a refresh, and winning all trophies available inside 18 month. Inter was dominating the domestic league, they hired Mourinho because they wanted to take the next step in Europe. I just don't agree with the idea that it was that much more of an achievement than Pep's treble. He had to beat Pep, but that's it basically.

This conversation has been done to death on here to be honest. Of course guardiola is a top manager, likely in the top 10 of all time, and of course he had an impact on that barca side. But it is also no coincidence that a non guardiola managed Spain side dominated international football through this spell too. 2008-2012. I believe that if you added Messi at that stage to any of the other top 5 clubs in the world at that time, then barca wouldn't have won a cl whoever Messi was at would have. It is the single most outlying factor of an individual player i can ever think of.

All in all, for his talent, there are simply more question marks about what guardiola has achieved compared to other managers who have proven themselves across a far greater range of challenges

 

[moodyred]

If he had left after the contract, this collapse would have been attributed to his absence. Now, he has exposed a weak side of his management.

 

[SER19]

Fourth?

A cl win in 2006, a semi final in 2008, with xavi iniesta puyol messi and etoo in place. Don't let reality get in the way of the pep myth. People pretend barca were some fallen giant

 

[CoopersDream]

Fourth?

Sorry, third it should be. Misremembered that one. It was City that finished fourth the year before he arrived. Still 18 points off the top, hardly a team thriving, was it.

All in all, for his talent, there are simply more question marks about what guardiola has achieved compared to other managers who have proven themselves across a far greater range of challenges

This is where I don't really agree. Of relative contemporaries, I'd have SAF ahead (arguably the GOAT) and then Mou could be argued ahead only if you place an incredible importance of winning a CL with a sort of smaller club. Ancelotti hasn't done anything of note when he hasn't managed either the richest or biggest and richest clubs in the country he's managed in, so he hasn't really proven himself at any range of challanges either. No other contemprorary is near Pep.

 

[SER19]

Sorry, third it should be. Misremembered that one. It was City that finished fourth the year before he arrived. Still 18 points off the top, hardly a team thriving, was it.

This is where I don't really agree. Of relative contemporaries, I'd have SAF ahead (arguably the GOAT) and then Mou could be argued ahead only if you place an incredible importance of winning a CL with a sort of smaller club. Ancelotti hasn't done anything of note when he hasn't managed either the richest or biggest and richest clubs in the country he's managed in, so he hasn't really proven himself at any range of challanges either. No other contemprorary is near Pep.

we can disagree on this, its not like im saying guardiola is hopeless. I do think he's been enormously overrated though and has been elevated to a near godlike status by the british media who ignore things that warrant huge scrutiny. Ancelotti though, come on, hes won FIVE champions leagues and won the title in 5 countries - albeit germany and france should be simple like the 3 guardiola claimed at bayern. He also won the premier league while in a good battle with fergusons team, scoring 102 league goals in the process. There was also enormous pressure on that madrid job back in his first spell, where they were about 12 years without even reaching a CL final, with the 'decima' hysteria over him too. He then returned and pulled them immediately out of a bit of a slump post zidane and ronaldo era. Again with guardiola - my issue is that i believe that if Klopp for example had got the city job when guardiola did, he'd also have won a handful of league titles and quite likely a cl given his record with liverpool in europe. If Guardiola goes on to do something impressive away from city then of course he'd rise higher in my estimation

 

[njred]

He’s having a bad season, which is great. But it’s just a bad season. It happens

 

[PlasticRed]

Hes not been tested at a financially strained club and overachieved. Ferguson, Mourinho and Clough have all done this.

 

[CoopersDream]

we can disagree on this, its not like im saying guardiola is hopeless. I do think he's been enormously overrated though and has been elevated to a near godlike status by the british media who ignore things that warrant huge scrutiny. Ancelotti though, come on, hes won FIVE champions leagues and won the title in 5 countries - albeit germany and france should be simple like the 3 guardiola claimed at bayern. He also won the premier league while in a good battle with fergusons team, scoring 102 league goals in the process. There was also enormous pressure on that madrid job back in his first spell, where they were about 12 years without even reaching a CL final, with the 'decima' hysteria over him too. He then returned and pulled them immediately out of a bit of a slump post zidane and ronaldo era. Again with guardiola - my issue is that i believe that if Klopp for example had got the city job when guardiola did, he'd also have won a handful of league titles and quite likely a cl given his record with liverpool in europe. If Guardiola goes on to do something impressive away from city then of course he'd rise higher in my estimation

Yes, Ancelotti is great. But if you're gonna tell me that anyone would have won with Barcelona when Pep did, then it would be disingenuous to not say the same about the teams Ancelotti has won with. They've been absolutely stacked with top talent, he's managed a ridiculous amount of Balon Do'r winners. Also, I'm not seeing why Ancelotti beating a post Ronaldo United to a title is more impressive than Pep beating a brilliant Liverpool side. Either both are impressive or none of them are.

As for the last point, if Klopp were in Guardiola's position he might have won this or that (I personally think he might have won one more CL but less PL's for sure). But you could make the same argument for Klopp being in Ancelotti's position - there's certainly a decent argument he would have done equally as well given he has a pretty damn good CL record. Doesn't mean he's greater than Ancelotti.

 

[BorisManUtd]

Not a patch on Fergie, not even a comparison anymore. Without the pick of the best/richest/combo of both team in each league with world class players he can't do what he does.

He would have not won the league with Fergie's last title winning team, no way.

In the Prem, I rate Klopp higher even though he won less, he built his team on much of a less budget.

Whereas Pep spent over a quarter of a billion getting his back line to the level he wanted. Fullbacks didn't work?

Just spend another £100m on a new pair.

I remember as a kid playing FIFA in early 2010s and I was always bit annoyed how in the game they were giving (what I considered) low ratings to many of our players, except for Rooney and maybe few others. But it turned out while many were good squad players they weren't exactly that good. Still we won titles in most of the seasons and were better GD away from it in 2012 and 1 point away in 2010. Fergie was really special.

On Pep I disagree with others in here. He's obviously spent a lot of money no doubt but also has had great achievements. Only Fergie and Mourinho won 2 consecutive titles in PL before Pep did it in 2019 winning domestic treble. 4 titles in the row which was never done before in English football iirc. I prefer manager being successful in league campaign to CL as it demands winning most of the games from August to May. Treble in 2023. People first said he'd fail in the Premier League back in 2016/17 and then when that didn't happen trying to find other reasons why he's not top manager.

Also find that Pep is mostly respectful person and he rarely engaged in stuff that Mourinho did often at various clubs. I don't remember him saying a bad word about United and he faces us to many times as City manager and also at previous clubs.

 

[Wheato]

It is possible that his era has come to an end. His unique style of play is no longer unique, there are teams in the championship adopting these tactics. The ball playing goalie is pretty much worldwide now. You are seeing the likes of Brighton and Bournemouth out-pepping Pep. When you look back to Pep's amazing Barcelona team, we are going back 15 years now.

Maybe he is old hat. It happens. Mourinho was the top dog, then he just became predictable and boring.

I really do think that the managers who are catching the eye now are all youngish guys with the perfect balance of personality, vision and intelligence.

And I think that we have got one of the best ones in Amorim.

 

[njred]

Hes not been tested at a financially strained club and overachieved. Ferguson, Mourinho and Clough have all done this.

Ferguson was never financially strained at united.

 

[SungSam7]

Ferguson was never financially strained at united.

Just going to ignore Aberdeen then is it?

 

[njred]

Just going to ignore Aberdeen then is it?

Oh. I see. As long as we’re in agreement that Ferguson had his pick of players with united with no limitations. Pep never coached a team like an Aberdeen so how would we know how successful he would have been. The thing is most coaches if not all are financially strained. Just boggles the mind that people are burying the guy for having one bad year out of what,15?

 

[brozonis]

Just going to ignore Aberdeen then is it?

It's a bit pointless to make comparisons about the finances of football in the 1980s with that of the last 20 years. Pretty much all clubs were relatively financially strained in the 80s, but the best talent was also spread around a lot more widely so you didn't need to spend big to compete.

 

[FattyFooty]

Messi, Ronaldo, Guardiola, Pele, Best, Maradonna, Jose....

So many football Goats...

But to me the Goats of Goats is SAF.

 

[Posh Red]

Oh. I see. As long as we’re in agreement that Ferguson had his pick of players with united with no limitations. Pep never coached a team like an Aberdeen so how would we know how successful he would have been. The thing is most coaches if not all are financially strained. Just boggles the mind that people are burying the guy for having one bad year out of what,15?

It’s a lot easier to sign expensive players when you fill your team with academy players. It means you can focus on one or two star signings.

 

[njred]

It’s a lot easier to sign expensive players when you fill your team with academy players. It means you can focus on one or two star signings.

All I know is united could buy anyone they wanted to during SAF’s tenure. Anyway this isn’t about him. It’s about Pep and the overreaction to a bad first half of a season. As if this will reflect on if his legacy is ruined ect..Even his own supporters are in panic stations. You can’t win every season but he did come the closest to locking down the PL as his own like no other mgr has ever done. Obviously I want him to lose to help my own team out, but to dismiss his unparalleled achievements in the league over a bad month is silly.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

All I know is united could buy anyone they wanted to during SAF’s tenure.

This is clearly bollocks. His tenure included the rise of the state sponsored clubs for a start

 

[Desert Eagle]

All I know is united could buy anyone they wanted to during SAF’s tenure. Anyway this isn’t about him. It’s about Pep and the overreaction to a bad first half of a season. As if this will reflect on if his legacy is ruined ect..Even his own supporters are in panic stations. You can’t win every season but he did come the closest to locking down the PL as his own like no other mgr has ever done. Obviously I want him to lose to help my own team out, but to dismiss his unparalleled achievements in the league over a bad month is silly.

Winning 4 in a row is impressive and 6 out of 7 is great too but what Fergie did once the PL started is better. 13 out of 19 titles, never finished outside the top 3 ever.

 

[MrMarcello]

This is clearly bollocks. His tenure included the rise of the state sponsored clubs for a start

It's also ignoring how the PLC held firm to strict wage ceiling up until around 2000 when Keane was ready to bolt. The PLC refused to meet bonus requests (Batistuta or Salas think it was), refused to bust it's imposed wage cap in the Bosman era (DeSailly on a free in 96 for example), and wouldn't approve huge transfer outlays (Figo/Rivaldo rumors) in the 90s that certainly show SAF did have financial constraints to consider. There were players signing for Blackburn, Newcastle and fecking Boro making more than United's top stars. He had to practically beg the board to spend legit sums in summer 98 to get Stam and Yorke if the club wanted to compete on the continent. And they barely spent anything the following two years when the club needed to further strengthen and this directly led to the summer 2001 big fees paid for Ruud and Veron.

It's fortunate the club had a great crop of youth come through in the mid-90s and SAF was able to sign plenty of English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh talents for reasonable fees, including a couple British record signings, in which the fees paid still paled in comparison to fees paid on the continent.

 

[PlasticRed]

Ferguson was never financially strained at united.

He was at Aberdeen in comparison to the teams he beat.

 

[erikcred]

But the whole reason why you rate Mourinho's Inter triumph so high is because he beat Pep's Barcelona. If there had been another manager who didn't make that team great, it wouldn't have been a great achievement because of beating Barcelona. Let me ask you this: most everyone would agree that Barca peaked somewhere around 2010-2011, do you think that was because magically all their players peaked at the same time, or do you think it had something to do with Guardiola? They won twice and came to four semi's in the CL during his time there. Since then Barca managed three semi's and one title.

Anyways, while I certainly buy that Mourinho's title with Porto is a different type of achievement to what Pep has done (as he's never managed a club that isn't sort of an European powerhouse) his title with Inter gets a fair bit overhype. The treble was incredible obviously, as any such feat is, but he was hired by a team dominating in the domestic league to take them to the next level in Europe. Hardly a miracle that he did.

Maybe a team dominating in their domestic league should also hire Pep just to win the CL. Like, a Bayern Munich or someone of that level.

 

[Dannn411]

Ferguson was never financially strained at united.

What nonsense. He didnt have his pick of players at any point in his Manchester United career. There's many many stories of big players we missed out on due to other clubs offering better financial packages and you come here and say this. Arguably his most successful period (2006-2013) at Manchester United came when he was the most constrained financially because of the Glazer's LBO. Where do you think "No value in the market" came from? Pep has never experienced anything remotely close.

 

[Dannn411]

All I know is united could buy anyone they wanted to during SAF’s tenure. Anyway this isn’t about him. It’s about Pep and the overreaction to a bad first half of a season. As if this will reflect on if his legacy is ruined ect..Even his own supporters are in panic stations. You can’t win every season but he did come the closest to locking down the PL as his own like no other mgr has ever done. Obviously I want him to lose to help my own team out, but to dismiss his unparalleled achievements in the league over a bad month is silly.

Totally false. Shearer, Batistuta, Zidane, Benzema, Ronaldinho and a whole host of others says otherwise. Nobody cares how many titles Pep wins precisely because of how uneven the playing field is compared to everybody else. Pep's legend comes from the Barcelona days. If Sir Alex had the financial backing of an entire state, he would have won 19 out of 19 PL titles and few more CLs too. Unfortunately he didn't so he had to settle for 13 domestic titles and 2 CLs instead.

 

[Hester_manc]

He’s having a bad season, which is great. But it’s just a bad season. It happens

A bad season can happen. But if we are talking about the category "the greatest manager of all time", it cannot happen on this scale.

It is also more than a bad season. It's a total break down. City actually had a good season and were among the 2 best teams in the league, until the team suddenly collapsed. So the team has proven (before the collapse) that it can still work. And in my eyes, Pep still has the best team in the world if we look player by player. He just does not know how to save them in the situation they are in.

 

[Bondi77]

Pep has to be in the debate for best manager but could he do what Clough did with a team like Forest???
I don't think so.

 

[TheReligion]

Ferguson was never financially strained at united.

Do you not remember the time we replaced Ronaldo with Bellion, Owen and Obertan?

I understand why you both have the opinions you do but especially under the Glazers Fergie was asked to do more for less.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ale...rs/trainer/4/plus/0/galerie/0?station_id=2398

I mean if you look at the list in date order above there’s only Van Persie and possibly Berbatov that stand out as top signings over quite a lengthy period before he retired.

Clearly Valencia did very well but in terms of having the backing to do whatever he wanted? I’m not so sure.

 

[red.knight]

Pep just needs 300m in January and he will turn it around in no time.

 

[Daydreamer]

Totally false. Shearer, Batistuta, Zidane, Benzema, Ronaldinho and a whole host of others says otherwise. Nobody cares how many titles Pep wins precisely because of how uneven the playing field is compared to everybody else. Pep's legend comes from the Barcelona days. If Sir Alex had the financial backing of an entire state, he would have won 19 out of 19 PL titles and few more CLs too. Unfortunately he didn't so he had to settle for 13 domestic titles and 2 CLs instead.

I don’t think any of those players you listed turned United down for financial reasons, did they?

 

[Kwabs]

Pep was a decent player.

Fergie was less so, though played for Rangers and top league scorer one season.

Of players with over 200 goals in the English leagues, Clough has the highest goals-per-game ratio of 0.916. Ever.

Paisley lost years to WW2 but was a good player too, winning a league with Liverpool.

Busby was a very good player (ironically playing for City and Liverpool).

And Ancelotti, well surely you know he was a very good player?

I mean the fact that you call Pep a 'decent' player shows your bias, IMO. And you've listed loads of managers that were not part of the actual discussion I was having, as if to prove something that i never actually said (that good players never become good managers - I never actually said this).

What I was saying is that top players often get opportunities to start their managerial careers in places that lesser players wouldn't. Especially at clubs where they were established stars.

And I was talking about the relatively modern game, cos I don't think it's possible to reasonably debate things like 'who was better' - 'Paisley or Pep', or 'Clough or Pep.' That's a fruitless discussion, given the extreme differences in football between now and the 60s/70s. Every single thing has changed, from who you can buy to how much you can spend, to Bosman, foreign players, coaching systems, state/billionaire ownership, video analysis, training methods, analytics, etc. etc. And managers, unlike players, have to deal more directly with and attempt to control all of these factors.

On the other hand, Carlo v Pep or Jose v Pep and even Fergie v Pep are reasonable questions, because there is some overlap. They have all dealt wirh the same or similar things and managed against each other in games. Fergie began his career a long time ago. but that speaks to one of the things that made him great, his ability to keep up with all the changes in football over a quarter of a century.

Basically, what happened to Pep is similar to what happened to Zidane at Madrid and Pirlo at Juventus (Pep is not on the level of the other two but he was a lot more than a 'decent' player). However, Zidane and Pep thrived, and Pirlo failed. Because it is actually possible to fail when you are given a humongous club to manage as your first senior job, even if you have a player in your team that is considered to be one of the greatest players of all time.

 

[CoopersDream]

Maybe a team dominating in their domestic league should also hire Pep just to win the CL. Like, a Bayern Munich or someone of that level.

What does that matter? The point isn't what Pep did at Bayern, the point is that Inter wasn't some scrappy club. Which they weren't.

 

[hellhunter]

What does that matter? The point isn't what Pep did at Bayern, the point is that Inter wasn't some scrappy club. Which they weren't,

The idea that Mourinho picked underdogs is wild to me. Sure his rise to fame with Porto was special, but he subsequently went from big club to big club afterwards

 

[stefan92]

The idea that Mourinho picked underdogs is wild to me. Sure his rise to fame with Porto was special, but he subsequently went from big club to big club afterwards

In a way Mourinho made his clubs underdogs. His whole approach of "everybody is against us" to rally his teams to a cause projects this image. No matter how good his teams actually were, he always worked that way.

 

[erikcred]

What does that matter? The point isn't what Pep did at Bayern, the point is that Inter wasn't some scrappy club. Which they weren't.

Just saying.

Since you all are contextualising Mourinho's Inter exploits with this caveat, especially in a discussion comparing him to Pep, I think it's appropriate to add that Pep failed to do this in three years at Bayern. After taking over at a club that had made 3 finals in four years. And it took him 6 years and a gazillion quid to achieve this at City.

So, while not quite a Leicester story, I think we should show more respect for the first treble in Italy and not just dismiss it with a "Oh well, was expected". I would've thought people on this forum would value that particular achievement much more than they seem to. It's not like United won the treble after just getting promoted to the PL either. But it's still one of the greatest achievements in club football.

 

[slyadams]

Ancelotti hasn't done anything of note when he hasn't managed either the richest or biggest and richest clubs in the country he's managed in

Neither has Pep, that’s why he’ll never seriously be in the running for GOAT for me.