You missed Lewandowski
'Pep' Guardiola sack watch
- Thread starter Classical Mechanic
- Start date
Well City ran away with the title in 2018 (100 pts) where as Liverpool finished on 75 points so using your own logic, Liverpool were not a quality side and City were amazing, so that's a flop, especially losing so badly 5-1! no excuse. Everyone knows they underperformed that year as Leicester did not have more quality than that City side. How many players would you swap? Only Mahrez and Kante would get in the 11. Neither did Spurs or Arsenal so give me a break. City league campaign could have been undermined by the fact they pretty much sacked their manager at Christmas. They were 2nd after 23 games. Why should they get away with going out to "red hot" Monaco? City are the only big side that Monaco actually beat. Juve did the double over them as a top side should, winning comfortably.
Every season they are learning and improving their squad as they were new to Europe and a low seed. They also had some group of deaths back then because of their seeding.
For back to back years (2014,2015) they kept drawing Barcelona in the Round of 16, the same Barcelona who you said had the best team in Europe, with Neymer and Suarez so that contributed to their poor showings in Europe just before the Semi Final appearance. Context matters
Regardless of the style of play they were already dominant, he just continued it at Bayern amd Barca. At City he's only had to spend about 800m to get it. He might be nearly there, another couple of 100m might just do it.
Great coaches have teams that win trophies, it's what makes them great coaches.
What are you on about? Liverpool had a much better league campaign that year than City in 2015/16, were the second best team in the league for the second part of that season and had just gotten van Dijk in which was a very important player for them to go on and become the great team they became later on that same year. They clearly were a side with much better potential than the City side of 2016 which is why it literally took them a few months after beating City in the CL to go on and then get something like 179 of the following 198 Premier League points. They were on the cusp of being phenomenal, and they already were that in the CL that season.
Sure, Leicester overperformed and City underperformed in the league that year. That's neither here nor there.
Monaco was a very good side that year, got the title in Ligue 1 in front of PSG winning 18 of their last 20 league games. Sure, Juventus beat them, Juventus also thumped Barca as they were a very good side.
1)They finished the same position, 4th. Before Van Dijk signed Liverpool were 4th, 20 points off first place and 5 off United. At the end of the season they were 4th, 25 points off 1st place and 6 points off United. This is in spite of them having to play catch up and fight for CL spot. They didn't close any gaps. They actually fell further behind their main rivals. They finished below United under Jose and you fronting like they were on the cusp of a title challenge? Even we did better in the league. In fact we even beat them in the run in. How can you look at a team 25 points off the top spot and say they are quality? Everyone was surprised they managed to get to the final that year. They were massive underdogs.
2) who cares if you have form for half a season? Means little as United even looked really good for 22 games under Ole, especially when chasing top 4. They won 11/18. We have had better runs.
How many Pool players would you pick if you combined the 2 squads? Pool from 2018 and City from 2016?
Kompany, Sterling, Aguero, Fernandinho, De Bruyne, Silva, Otamendi, Delph all featured heavily in the City side who actually finished 25 points ahead of Liverpool in 2018, 100 points and they were all part of the 2016 team including the likes of Yaya, Zabaleta etc. But they were trash though............
Yes, they were in the same position. City started the season strongly, Liverpool started the season badly. City absolutely collapsed, whereas Liverpool picked up and were the second best team in the league the second half of the season. Clearly different trajectories. How can I look at a team 25 points behind and say the were quality? The same core team managed to get 97 points the following season, with the major acqusition being Alisson (or at least the major difference maker). That's why.
Yes, it's true that Liverpool weren't tipped for the finale beforehand, but they got there and looking back at it now it's not that weird even if it was a bit a suprise at the time. City's semi final run, though, is obviously much more of an outlier and less indicative where they actually were as a team at that point.
Because it showed they were building towards something, how can this be so hard to understand? I mean, we literally have the facts here and we know Liverpool results were insane from the start of the following season.
I don't think this is a great way of looking at it, combining squads won't always make the teams that much better. Anyway there clearly are quite a few players in the Liverpool side that City gladly would have taken. Salah, Mane, van Dijk and Robertson at least. Alexander-Arnorld I'd say. I think they'd have Firmino in a heartbeat as well (I don't think Liverpool for example would have been that much better with Aguero in that position instead of Firmino during those years even if Aguero obviously is the better player). Neither GK were impressive. Kompany would be the other CB position. In midfield City is generally stronger of course.
Kompany, Sterling, Aguero, Fernandino, De Bruyne and SIlva are obviously all very good players. Sterling was more a prospect than finished product though and greatly imrpoved during the coming three or so years. Fernandinho isn't as good as a lot of people here make him out to be, but he's a very good DM and does what Pep wants him to do very well. Kompany didn't really play that much under Guardiola though, he was injured most of the time. The other three were world class, no doubt.
Last edited:
And what separates those great coaches amongst each other, is the impact they make in the game.
And no he didn't just continue their dominance, he made them way more dominant than they were.
At City, didn't he win the league his 2nd season with 100 points? I don't recall him spending 800M at that point to achieve that dominance...
I didn't know he spent that much money in the 2017 summer transfer window. Think that might have broken FFP.
Saying "he spent money to win the title fairly quickly, and then spent more money and continued winning the title" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
The spending argument relies on people seeing a big number, finding it spooky, and not thinking about it any further.
Last edited:
This pretty much sums up Pep as a whole, not only at Bayern.
His system is great for beating weaker teams with a bit more frequency and with a larger scoring gap.
The reason why the myth of him being so great persists is that there have always been so few squads on a level similar to the ones he managed.
Spent 800m a city and has achieved the exact same as the guys before him. Doesn't matter if you score a 100 goals and get 100 points and batter Watford in an FA Cup final. Trophies will be what defines how that team is remembered, City will be remembered for Peps style but more so for how much he spent vs what he's achieved. Which is nothing more or less than Mancini or Pellegrino.
Guardiola has not achieved "the exact same" as the guys before him.
It's not really possible to engage with these arguments that consist of saying "two different numbers are the same."
It's not really possible to engage with these arguments that consist of saying "two different numbers are the same."
While it might be close, Cruyff has to be Barca's GOAT. He is literraly their SAF minus the longevity. The man took a backwater and underachieving club and turned it into the powerhouse it is today whilist helping them win their first CL in 1992. Suffice to say without Cruyff, there would be no Guardiola.
If you think trophies, and I guess that’s what the sheiks had in mind when they invested their bloody billions, you can absolutely compare that. Mancini + Pellegrini got 2 premier leagues, 1 FA cup and 0 champions leagues. In more time than either manager and slowly about to surpass their combined tenure, Pep got 3 premier leagues, 1 FA cup and 0 champions league - with more money, more control over the club, more comfort to realise his vision and a much better squad inherited, look at the players Mancini/Pellegrini started with and look what Pep took over. The only improvement they’ve witnessed is that they’re now the undisputed kings of rather irrelevant, third-tier EFL cup.
Last edited:
Can you please at least try to argue from a position of intellectual honesty? Pellegrini won 3 major honours with City. Mancini won 2. Guardiola so far has 8, including 3 PL titles in four years. That doesn’t sound like the ‘exact same’ thing to me.
You have some intellectual honesty in my post above. Not many people I know consider League Cup a major trophy, but to each their own - I am sure it's those cups that Sheiks and City fans had in mind when they signed Guardiola, domination in this competition is indeed a feat like no other. But for the purpose of being serious, let's not count those as major trophies at this point, because we soon might get to Jose-like debates on worthiness of Charity Shields and stuff.
Again, Pellegrini has a league. Mancini a league + FA cup. Pep three leagues + FA cup. He stayed much longer than either of them and had a much easier job. Spin it any way you want, but five full seasons ago when City were signing Guardiola and gave im close to one billion pounds over next half a decade, there's no way the management didn't expect more in terms of trophies. Don't get me wrong - over the last five years they were the best team hands down in England and among the best in Europe. But time will fly and what will be left is not sheik-paid pundits and their passion for Pep's football, but the trophy count. And it's pretty much "exact same" as what they were achieving few years ago. And exactly the same in terms of European success, the elusive goal City had in mind since the Emirati takeover. Pep was brought to make it happen, don't forget about it.
Then why aren't those guys rated anywhere as highly as he is?
By the way, you really didn't respond to the posts you quoted. Did Pep spend 800M by the time he dominated the league winning with 100points ?
Because Guardiola is the most overrated manager in the last decade. Since leaving Barça there has been at least few managers that had much better and more successful next ten years.
Obviously you know better than ex great players, coaches and specialists who don't seem to share your opinion about Pep.
I think its a great way considering we are debating the quality of the respective teams and who had more potential. Hindsight changes everyone's opinions. You have to look at both the quality of manager AND players to assess team quality and potential. A few Pool players would be taken yes but we cannot pretend City didn't have some BALLERS. Firmimo ain't replacing Aguero so I would agree with the other 4. So 4 of those pool players and arguably 7 from City 2016. City clearly had potential which is why many of those core players amassed 100 pts in 2018 to win the league. 8 of those players featured heavily in their title win of 100 pts so same rationale applies as what you use for Liverpool. City shouldn't have been seem as an outlier as they had enjoyed more sustained success than Liverpool in the period 2014-2018 than Liverpool did. In their 2018 titles win, of the 11 most used players in the league, 7 were already part of the 2016 team so with hindsight.......
Don't agree with that, Guardiola and Klopp plays differently and would thus require different qualities from their players. Aguero, for example, is definetely a (much) better player (striker) than Firmino, but for what Klopp wanted from him in that role I'm quite sure that Firmino is the better of the two players to provide.
Of course there were some players i
No, not at all. We also have Alexander-Arnold, who would go in for wahtever right back City had I'd say. GK is a washout, both were booted the next season and neither have managed to do anything since. There isn't much in it between Henderson and Ferndandinho at all. Silva and De Bruyne is much much better than anything Liverpool had in those positions obviously.
Of course there were potential in the City team, no doubt. They had some already great players, and some that would become great players. However, there are a big difference between the Liverpool side and hte City side - amongst the 15 players getting over 2000 minutes in 17/18 in all comps only 7 out of 14 outfield players were in the team when Guardiola took over. The same stat for Liverpool is 10/11 with Fabinho being the only addition. It's essantially the same team, which wasn't at all the case for Man City. I mean, just look at the acqusitions Pool made for their title winning season - they didn't buy anyone that featured at all basically and the two addtional players they bought in front of the 18/19 season almost didn't feature at all due to injuries - again it was pretty much the same team they played City with. I'm not saying that City's team in 2016 were bad, it was a very good team, but it clearly went through a lot more changes than the Liverpool team, this isn't even up for debate.
Last edited:
Is it possible that the shiekh forgot the trophies he had in mind when hiring and extending Guardiola and did not extend Mancini and Pellegrini
It's always funny when we assume to know what the owners of city and Bayern wanted, claim Pep didn't achieve it yet the owners keep begging Pep for an extension everytime
Tuchel takes advice from him. Zidane takes advice from him. Fergie respects him. But ‘Red Star One’ on the redcafe.net board knows the truth of this fraud better than those morons…..
Why are these managers not in demand everywhere like Guardiola. Is it that club owners don't know about their records that were better than Guardiola
Tuchel Zidane Ferguson never heard of Mancini Pellegrini Valverde Enrique and the other Barcelona coaches
Or Tuchel Zidane and Ferguson are part of the conspiracy to overrate Pep
Last edited:
Lewandowski was quality but played under Pep for 2 seasons. One he was injured at the semi. Similar to this season where he was injured vs PSG
I don't think Trent was that good in 2018 and was in and out of the team making 19 league appearances. I doubt Firmino would keep put Kun out under any manager as the difference in quality is too great. Klopp used to play with Lewandowski so he can use more traditional 9's. He is adaptable. He even put that Belgian guy in as his back up for Liverpool.
I don't doubt that City added way more players to their squad because Pep spent a billion which supports my initial point! He inherited a side with quality players but an aging "squad." 7 of the inherited players managed 7 out of 11 of the most minutes played in his 2018 100pt league campaign and then added loads more players for lots of money so he underperformed in Europe as I initially pointed out!
As an Arsenal fan I’m pretty neutral (other than the fact that Barca deprived us of a CL and United hacked Reyes to pieces to end our Invincible run). At least my bias is fairly balanced.
Pep supporters can come across as Zealots at times. He does seem to attract ardent followers, which I haven’t found to be the case with other modern managers. If nothing else, he is unique in that regard.
His detractors arguments tend to boil down to a single attack - lots of coaches could have achieved what he has achieved.
Which begs the obvious question - why didn’t they then? There will always be a Klopp who prefers a project, a Conte who bristles against his working conditions, or a Pochettino who views trophies an ego-boosting vice to be avoided. But most coaches want to be Guardiola. So why isn’t there anyone near his level of consistency?
The trouble United fans will always run into is that it is difficult to deride Guardiola without resorting to arguments that also apply to PL era Ferguson. (Guardiola obviously doesn’t have anything on his resume like what Ferguson did at Aberdeen). However, in terms of trophies, Ferguson’s most successful period is when United capitalised upon his work to build a financial advantage over his domestic competitors - prior to Ambramovic’s arrival. This is the only part of Ferguson’s career you can directly compare with Guardiola’s... and bald Spanish dude comes off well:
Guardiola - 12 seasons (08-21)
2 Champions Leagues
9 Domestic Leagues
9 Domestic Cups
Ferguson - 12 seasons (92-04)
1 Champions League
8 Domestic Leagues
4 Domestic Cups
It really does seem like when world class managers have more resources than others in their league - they dominate domestically. No one except Zidane has ever dominated in Europe because it’s a cup competition. If Pep has underachieved - then Ferguson underachieved. But I don’t believe either did. Boiling a manager’s career down to how many times they won the Champions League places Di Matteo above Allegri.
Pep supporters can come across as Zealots at times. He does seem to attract ardent followers, which I haven’t found to be the case with other modern managers. If nothing else, he is unique in that regard.
His detractors arguments tend to boil down to a single attack - lots of coaches could have achieved what he has achieved.
Which begs the obvious question - why didn’t they then? There will always be a Klopp who prefers a project, a Conte who bristles against his working conditions, or a Pochettino who views trophies an ego-boosting vice to be avoided. But most coaches want to be Guardiola. So why isn’t there anyone near his level of consistency?
The trouble United fans will always run into is that it is difficult to deride Guardiola without resorting to arguments that also apply to PL era Ferguson. (Guardiola obviously doesn’t have anything on his resume like what Ferguson did at Aberdeen). However, in terms of trophies, Ferguson’s most successful period is when United capitalised upon his work to build a financial advantage over his domestic competitors - prior to Ambramovic’s arrival. This is the only part of Ferguson’s career you can directly compare with Guardiola’s... and bald Spanish dude comes off well:
Guardiola - 12 seasons (08-21)
2 Champions Leagues
9 Domestic Leagues
9 Domestic Cups
Ferguson - 12 seasons (92-04)
1 Champions League
8 Domestic Leagues
4 Domestic Cups
It really does seem like when world class managers have more resources than others in their league - they dominate domestically. No one except Zidane has ever dominated in Europe because it’s a cup competition. If Pep has underachieved - then Ferguson underachieved. But I don’t believe either did. Boiling a manager’s career down to how many times they won the Champions League places Di Matteo above Allegri.
Very likely to be the latter. Red Star One is not fooled though, unlike the rest of you ‘sheeple’
Imagine that if the opposite happens, and Pep won the final.
People here would have left this thread and camped in the "Chelsea appoint Tuchel" one to talk about how shit he's that he lost the two finals he got to and barely achieved top 4 due to Spurs defeating Leicester.
Funny when you think about it.
People here would have left this thread and camped in the "Chelsea appoint Tuchel" one to talk about how shit he's that he lost the two finals he got to and barely achieved top 4 due to Spurs defeating Leicester.
Funny when you think about it.
I wouldn't. Klopp lost his first to CL finals. Many would have been suprised that Tuchel even managed to get to the final with Chelsea
Yes of course
And you think I should argue from a position of intellectual honesty?
This is really an impressive, dare I say majestic, example of taking numbers and torturing them until they say what you want them to say.
Guardiola has managed City for 5 seasons and has won 3 PL titles, a 60% win rate. Pellegrini and Mancini managed for 3 full seasons each, and only won 1 each, for both an individual and a combined 33% win rate. So Guardiola has moved them from 33% to 60%, an enormous difference which makes him look extremely good.
In order to avoid this inevitable conclusion, you've 1) simultaneously combined the output of Mancini and Pellegrini and considered the length of their tenures individually (which is nonsense), and 2) reframed 'Guardiola has done it in less time' to 'Guardiola will soon have lasted more time', and 3) attempted to imply that his achievements are a virtue of time, when it is the reverse: the time he has been granted is being bought by his achievements.
Last edited:
There you have it, the truth in black and white. And he’s a Madrid fan so you can’t accuse him of bias
The league cup is one of the 3 top tier domestic football competitions in England and has been since 1960. I’m not sure what you’re struggling to understand here. If you want to exclude it (which makes no sense, but do you), PG has four trophies, which is still more than Mancini and Pellegrini combined.
Last edited:
Nobody considers the League Cup a major trophy.
You guys talking about his acting chops and fake tears?
It's a bit much methinks.
It's a bit much methinks.
I meant major trophy in the sense that it’s one of the 3 main domestic titles and not the Community Shield or a super cup or any other one game competition. You have to play a number of games to win it. If you want to count only the league and the FA Cup or just the league then PG still has more than both the other managers combined in each case. It’s pretty straightforward really.