'Pep' Guardiola sack watch

[Iker Quesadillas]

You look at the amount he spend and the improvement he got for his squad, and we see that this is good as he has probably the best squad in the PL, but not impressive as a lot of his signings did not really qualify as a success. It doesn't really matter how expensive single players are for this argument, when he can find world class for less than the most expensive fees that's nice, but when he tries to get better CBs, spends a lot, but not the most extreme money on half a dozen failures (failures as in: did not really improve the squad) it is fair to criticize him for that.

Well the problem is that there isn't a single argument being made on the thread. Many are being made, and there are certainly people arguing that City have great signings and an unbelievable squad, because they're the only ones who can afford to, and that's why Guardiola is winning.

I think your argument is better, I just don't believe it's true. I am looking at this list of City's signings since Guardiola was appointed manager. It looks pretty good. There are three high-profile failed signings: Mendy, Danilo, and Bravo. Mendy was the only truly expensive one. Danilo had an average price, the transfer was resolved easily (used to acquire a better player), and Bravo was 'cheap' (perhaps not for his age). Most of the players on the list still remain at the club, including Mendy. The list does not look obviously worse than the transfer dealings at other clubs.

Only four players from City's 2015-2016 squad remain in the club. Guardiola revamped the whole squad over 5 years. The renewal was not arbitrary: the majority of players who've left have not had equivalent performances elsewhere, many of them are already retired from football. During this process, City accelerated its rate of title wins, with 3 PL titles and 5 cups in 5 years, as opposed to 2 PL titles and 3 cups in the previous 6.

These things, as well as the historical record, are enough evidence for me that City are performing excellently, and all explanations for that reflect well on Guardiola. However, that's with a very simple model.

Is it possible he isn't? Sure. A more sophisticated model could show that. It's just not easy at all to make that model. It's not always simple to find that the best performing team is actually underperforming, nor is it simple to find out that a complex combination of 'things that look good but are worse' and 'things that look bad but are better' are combining to mislead us into reaching wrong conclusions about a club's performance. It's not simple, but it can be done. It's just not done on this thread. Instead, I just see a bunch of gut feelings that "it should look better."

 

[Hound Dog]

Rijkaard at his best was a very good coach. Di Matteo was an Ok coach who got lucky, right place, right time. Neither won the Champions league 3 seasons in a row though so I don’t understand the point of your question?

A half-competent cup manager that has to date won 14 cups, including two CLs. The same number of CLs as Hitzfeld, SAF, Del Bosque, Mourinho, Sacchi and Heynckes. A whole bunch of ‘incompetent’ cup managers it would seem. Seriously, the nonsense that gets talked on here……

The point of my question was exactly what you demonstrated in your below post, which is that you do not seem to take context into account when judging managers. There are numerous managers who won a lot in the right set of circumstances and the circumstances that Pep has been working in throughout his career are unparalleled.

We all know that domestic cups are second-rate competitions (or third-rate, when it comes to the League Cup) in today's football, so let's stick to what was the real point of my post in which I called him a poor cup manager- the CL. He won both of his Champions Leagues while leading once-in-a-lifetime set of players, while winning one of them thanks to arguably the most farcical refereeing display in the history of the competition.

Apart from that, he has a history of going out to sides, player-by-player, much weaker than his own or of being humiliated by sides on a similar level.

Or is it too much to expect to get past the likes of Monaco, Lyon and Tottenham with his Man City side? Or to not get destroyed by Real Madrid and Liverpool with the Bayern and City squads that he had? Or to not go out against ten-man 2012 Chelsea at home while 2:1 up on aggregate?

Apart from beating Real Madrid in 2010 (and it's hardly Guardiola's brilliance that gave Messi the skill to glide past five Real Madrid players and slot it home), I struggle to think of one single truly impressive CL knock-out achievements by his side. No, beating this year's PSG with this City squad is not impressive.

Beating Bayern 5:0 or whatever it was on aggregate with Real is. Beating Barcelona with Inter is. But he was on the receiving end of such things.

His side were hands down deserving winners in 2011, but that was a remarkably good moment for them, given how poor the other European giants were at that time. I would have loved to have had a chance to see that Barcelona vs Bayern of 2013 or Real of later years.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

This discussion about his money spend is not "shifting goalposts", it is actually quite straightforward. You look at the amount he spend and the improvement he got for his squad, and we see that this is good as he has probably the best squad in the PL, but not impressive as a lot of his signings did not really qualify as a success. It doesn't really matter how expensive single players are for this argument, when he can find world class for less than the most expensive fees that's nice, but when he tries to get better CBs, spends a lot, but not the most extreme money on half a dozen failures (failures as in: did not really improve the squad) it is fair to criticize him for that.

Other than Mendy, do you mind naming the said half a dozen failures?

 

[Oranges038]

With all due respect, are you crazy?! A few trophies with Real Madrid? He has the most Champions League wins in the entire history of the competition. I mean going back to 1955. Tied with Paisley and Ancelotti. I guess they’re average managers as well. I guess it was their squads that did it too, nothing to do with them. After all, it was Shankly that built the Liverpool we know, not Paisley, so Paisley is clearly not a great manager.

I mean Zidane has won the trophy more than any other Madrid manager and as another poster pointed out, he’s been their most successful manager in the league for some time as well. I don’t think you quite understand the significance of his achievements to be quite honest.

He hasn't.

4 years as a manager. Won a a few tophies win a squad stacked with world class players.

Remind me how that even compares to the careers of the guys you referenced?

 

[DJ Jeff]

He hasn't.

4 years as a manager. Won a a few tophies win a squad stacked with world class players.

Remind me how that even compares to the careers of the guys you referenced?

I wouldn't say he should have been able to win the league last year the way he did. After Ronaldo left he did brilliantly to help Benzema step up and become the goal scorer again. It really isn't a squad that is better than Barcas especially when you consider firepower. He shouldn't have been winning that league last year

 

[adexkola]

Other than Mendy, do you mind naming the said half a dozen failures?

I mean, if you describe failure as "anything other than a resounding success" (talk about classic goalpost moving), then I guess Guardiola (and every other manager) has had at least a 50% failure rate

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

I' agree with everything you said bar the bolded part.
In general, yes, he's a great tactician but, in the big games, when it counts, we have seen times and times again that he's overdoing it.

Ooh yes he is not the best at managing the mental aspects of the game in terms of comebacks. Like he can sometimes change a game tactically by making smart moves, but to inspire a dressing room like SAF did I am not seeing with him.
It would have been interesting to see Pep and SAF as a manager pair. Of course with the reputation both have it would be hard for them to settle with not making all the calls. Queiroz and SAF worked so well though as one tactical mastermind and one great man manager, squad builder.

 

[NasirTimothy]

The point of my question was exactly what you demonstrated in your below post, which is that you do not seem to take context into account when judging managers. There are numerous managers who won a lot in the right set of circumstances and the circumstances that Pep has been working in throughout his career are unparalleled.

We all know that domestic cups are second-rate competitions (or third-rate, when it comes to the League Cup) in today's football, so let's stick to what was the real point of my post in which I called him a poor cup manager- the CL. He won both of his Champions Leagues while leading once-in-a-lifetime set of players, while winning one of them thanks to arguably the most farcical refereeing display in the history of the competition.

Apart from that, he has a history of going out to sides, player-by-player, much weaker than his own or of being humiliated by sides on a similar level.

Or is it too much to expect to get past the likes of Monaco, Lyon and Tottenham with his Man City side? Or to not get destroyed by Real Madrid and Liverpool with the Bayern and City squads that he had? Or to not go out against ten-man 2012 Chelsea at home while 2:1 up on aggregate?

Apart from beating Real Madrid in 2010 (and it's hardly Guardiola's brilliance that gave Messi the skill to glide past five Real Madrid players and slot it home), I struggle to think of one single truly impressive CL knock-out achievements by his side. No, beating this year's PSG with this City squad is not impressive.

Beating Bayern 5:0 or whatever it was on aggregate with Real is. Beating Barcelona with Inter is. But he was on the receiving end of such things.

His side were hands down deserving winners in 2011, but that was a remarkably good moment for them, given how poor the other European giants were at that time. I would have loved to have had a chance to see that Barcelona vs Bayern of 2013 or Real of later years.

The problem that you have is that you think that criticism in the moment matters in the grand scheme of things, or in posterity. Arrigo Sacchi won two European Cups with the benefit of Berlusconi’s millions and a team featuring Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard, Baresi, Maldini and Costacurta amongst many others. He did little else of note in his career in his non-Milan years. He is still considered one of the greatest managers of all time.

You see, the fact that some agenda driven people think that Pep has ‘had it easy’ doesn’t actually matter. At the end of his career, people will look at what he won. If there’s 50 trophies sitting there, then he’ll be considered one of the greatest managers of all time (in fact he already is).

This would be the case even if he was just a winner and didn’t bring anything in terms of tactical and stylistic impact. But he brings that to the table as well.

There’s nothing that will change that I’m afraid. Going through his record and saying that he lost to this team or that team is utterly meaningless. You could do that with literally any manager who has been working for a significant length of time. You could do it with Fergie, who is arguably the greatest manager ever. He often lost to smaller, poorer clubs. It doesn’t matter. Don’t be a prisoner of the moment.

Also re Zidane, this idea that a manager can be carried to sustained success by great players is nonsense. Yes a manager can get lucky and win a CL in a knockout scenario once, but if you win twice or three times then the manager deserves credit, I’m afraid.

 

[NasirTimothy]

He hasn't.

4 years as a manager. Won a a few tophies win a squad stacked with world class players.

Remind me how that even compares to the careers of the guys you referenced?

You’re obviously trolling so there’s no point in responding seriously.

it would be nice if you could point out a manager that’s won the champions league three times that didn’t have access to world class players though, that’d be fun to see. I didn’t realise it could be done with bums off the street.

 

[bosskeano]

Sack?? He won't get sacked and in fact they are probably going to open up their piggy bank again for him while trying to purchase Grealish and Kane this summer. They will keep spending and backing him until they win the Champions League even if it means another 500m they piss into the wind for him.

 

[Maluco]

The part where you identify and pick solid players that'll fit your squad.

For all the money City have spent, they only have 1 player on the list of top 25 most expensive transfers (at 25). They have six players total on the top 50 list, all of whom have contributed to their success. Meanwhile, most other clubs that have a decent presence on the list have a bunch of questionable or failed transfers up there. United have four transfers in the top 25, two of them are considered failures (Di Maria, Lukaku) and two are qualified successes (Pogba, Maguire).

What are we to make of this?

1. We can simply take the transfer fees at face value and not pass judgment on the players' performances. That would suggest that City's squad is not full of the absolute best players in the world. They have a balanced squad instead, solid everywhere. Meanwhile, other clubs, which presumably have less money, put more of it onto single purchases. This must mean they're doing a good job.

2. We can look at the transfer fees relative to the players' actual performances. This would suggest that City have a better track record at the transfer market than other top teams. This must mean they're doing a good job.

The money argument is just an endless, shifting goalpost. See, we can look at Guardiola making a lot of defensive signings, and if they aren't working, we say "Guardiola is fecking up here, he's spent all this money and he can't fix his defense." However, if the defense starts working, then all we have to do is turn around and say "well of course the defense is working, he spent all that money on it!"

And we would be right! The way around that would be to make the right purchases with the big money straight away. That would be somewhat impressive.

He has signed pretty well, but until recently, his team had the spine he inherited. He will pass 1 billion this summer after inheriting a squad that already had Kompany, Otamendi, Fernandinho, de Bruyne, Sterling, David Silva and Aguero.

There is no goalposts to be moved. Spending so much money on top of that quality will never be impressive, end of story.

 

[Hound Dog]

The problem that you have is that you think that criticism in the moment matters in the grand scheme of things, or in posterity. Arrigo Sacchi won two European Cups with the benefit of Berlusconi’s millions and a team featuring Van Basten, Gullit, Rijkaard, Baresi, Maldini and Costacurta amongst many others. He did little else of note in his career in his non-Milan years. He is still considered one of the greatest managers of all time.

You see, the fact that some agenda driven people think that Pep has ‘had it easy’ doesn’t actually matter. At the end of his career, people will look at what he won. If there’s 50 trophies sitting there, then he’ll be considered one of the greatest managers of all time (in fact he already is).

This would be the case even if he was just a winner and didn’t bring anything in terms of tactical and stylistic impact. But he brings that to the table as well.

There’s nothing that will change that I’m afraid. Going through his record and saying that he lost to this team or that team is utterly meaningless. You could do that with literally any manager who has been working for a significant length of time. You could do it with Fergie, who is arguably the greatest manager ever. He often lost to smaller, poorer clubs. It doesn’t matter. Don’t be a prisoner of the moment.

Also re Zidane, this idea that a manager can be carried to sustained success by great players is nonsense. Yes a manager can get lucky and win a CL in a knockout scenario once, but if you win twice or three times then the manager deserves credit, I’m afraid.

Some people will, some people will not.

What you see as proof of Pep's and Zidane's greatness, I and many others see as a reflection of how unbelievably good Messi and Ronaldo were and what amazing supporting casts they had around them.

They both (Pep and Zidane) still have plenty of time to prove us wrong, though.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Some people will, some people will not.

What you see as proof of Pep's and Zidane's greatness, I and many others see as a reflection of how unbelievably good Messi and Ronaldo were and what amazing supporting casts they had around them.

They both (Pep and Zidane) still have plenty of time to prove us wrong, though.

Both Pep and Zidane have won major trophies without Messi and Ronaldo, so that one doesn’t hold water. They may not have won the CL, but the CL is not the only trophy that matters.

I mean where does it all end with this kind of thinking? It wasn’t Matt Busby that won the European Cup, it was George Best. It wasn’t Paisley, it was Dalglish. It wasn’t Sacchi, it was Van Basten. It wasn’t Michels, it was Cruyff. Surely the two things go hand in hand?

 

[Oranges038]

I wouldn't say he should have been able to win the league last year the way he did. After Ronaldo left he did brilliantly to help Benzema step up and become the goal scorer again. It really isn't a squad that is better than Barcas especially when you consider firepower. He shouldn't have been winning that league last year

It's a 2 horse race. He has a 50% chance of winning nearly every year. Last year the owner of the other horse spancelled it so it wasn't able to keep up.

You’re obviously trolling so there’s no point in responding seriously.

it would be nice if you could point out a manager that’s won the champions league three times that didn’t have access to world class players though, that’d be fun to see. I didn’t realise it could be done with bums off the street.

Be nice if you could consider context when looking at achievements.

Is he a great coach or manager? Not to me right now, he might be if he goes on to do more.

 

[Isotope]

Pep spent a gazillion, but he guaranteed top trophies, and play beautiful football that attract fans. He put City in world football map. He’s what City needs.

hth, If i were City’s owner, i’d like to keep him another 10 years if possible.

 

[Hound Dog]

Both Pep and Zidane have won major trophies without Messi and Ronaldo, so that one doesn’t hold water. They may not have won the CL, but the CL is not the only trophy that matters.

I mean where does it all end with this kind of thinking? It wasn’t Matt Busby that won the European Cup, it was George Best. It wasn’t Paisley, it was Dalglish. It wasn’t Sacchi, it was Van Basten. It wasn’t Michels, it was Cruyff. Surely the two things go hand in hand?

They do but football has become quite polarized since then. Winning a domestic title was quite a success back in the days. Today, they are won by default in so many leagues or with not much real competition in others.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

Some people will, some people will not.

What you see as proof of Pep's and Zidane's greatness, I and many others see as a reflection of how unbelievably good Messi and Ronaldo were and what amazing supporting casts they had around them.

They both (Pep and Zidane) still have plenty of time to prove us wrong, though.

Sorry but other great coaches (ex and present), players and specialists already consider Pep as one of the best ever because of the influence he's had in the way the game is played today (the same can't be said about Fergie), he might as well stop coaching right now and it won't change anything.
I think their opinion holds more weight than that of people saying otherwise on a forum.

 

[Sandikan]

And we would be right! The way around that would be to make the right purchases with the big money straight away. That would be somewhat impressive.

He has signed pretty well, but until recently, his team had the spine he inherited. He will pass 1 billion this summer after inheriting a squad that already had Kompany, Otamendi, Fernandinho, de Bruyne, Sterling, David Silva and Aguero.

There is no goalposts to be moved. Spending so much money on top of that quality will never be impressive, end of story.

Yeah but Pep improved all of those players remember. They were mostly borderline non league until then.

 

[mu4c_20le]

You’re obviously trolling so there’s no point in responding seriously.

it would be nice if you could point out a manager that’s won the champions league three times that didn’t have access to world class players though, that’d be fun to see. I didn’t realise it could be done with bums off the street.

Mourinho literally did just that.

 

[NasirTimothy]

It's a 2 horse race. He has a 50% chance of winning nearly every year. Last year the owner of the other horse spancelled it so it wasn't able to keep up.

It’s a ‘two horse race’ that Madrid haven’t done very well in during the last decade yet he deserves no credit. And someone other than these ‘two horses’ won it this year but of course that’s neither here nor there.

Be nice if you could consider context when looking at achievements.

There’s no ‘context’ to three champions league wins in a row, it’s a tremendous achievement for Zidane whatever the context. If it was once, you could say ‘well it’s a really good team and he got lucky’. Three in a row and you just start sounding ridiculous when you make claims like that.

Is he a great coach or manager? Not to me right now, he might be if he goes on to do more.

So you can’t name me a manager who’s won 3 CLs without world class players? Good to know.

 

[adexkola]

Mourinho literally did just that.

No he did not.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Mourinho literally did just that.

Mourinho has not even won it three times so I’m not sure what you mean here. He won it once with an unfancied team. The other team he won it with had world class players

 

[adexkola]

Mourinho has not even won it three times so I’m not sure what you mean here. He won it once with an unfancied team. The other team he won it with had world class players

He faced Deportivo La Coruna and Monaco after making it past us in the QFs due to a Scholes goal that was wrongly ruled off.

He won it with an unfancied team against unfancied teams, with the likes of Deco and Carvalho and Baia who were far from bums.

Very great accomplishment for Porto, but the field couldn't have been more favorable.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

It's a 2 horse race. He has a 50% chance of winning nearly every year.

This isn't true. It sounds true, and it's a reasonable thing to infer. But if you look at the numbers, it is not true. At all.

Which is the problem with half the arguments here, they're reasonable inferences that don't actually match the real world. Then people, instead of throwing away the argument, seek to throw away the world.

 

[georgipep]

Well the problem is that there isn't a single argument being made on the thread. Many are being made, and there are certainly people arguing that City have great signings and an unbelievable squad, because they're the only ones who can afford to, and that's why Guardiola is winning.

I think your argument is better, I just don't believe it's true. I am looking at this list of City's signings since Guardiola was appointed manager. It looks pretty good. There are three high-profile failed signings: Mendy, Danilo, and Bravo. Mendy was the only truly expensive one. Danilo had an average price, the transfer was resolved easily (used to acquire a better player), and Bravo was 'cheap' (perhaps not for his age). Most of the players on the list still remain at the club, including Mendy. The list does not look obviously worse than the transfer dealings at other clubs.

Only four players from City's 2015-2016 squad remain in the club. Guardiola revamped the whole squad over 5 years. The renewal was not arbitrary: the majority of players who've left have not had equivalent performances elsewhere, many of them are already retired from football. During this process, City accelerated its rate of title wins, with 3 PL titles and 5 cups in 5 years, as opposed to 2 PL titles and 3 cups in the previous 6.

These things, as well as the historical record, are enough evidence for me that City are performing excellently, and all explanations for that reflect well on Guardiola. However, that's with a very simple model.

Is it possible he isn't? Sure. A more sophisticated model could show that. It's just not easy at all to make that model. It's not always simple to find that the best performing team is actually underperforming, nor is it simple to find out that a complex combination of 'things that look good but are worse' and 'things that look bad but are better' are combining to mislead us into reaching wrong conclusions about a club's performance. It's not simple, but it can be done. It's just not done on this thread. Instead, I just see a bunch of gut feelings that "it should look better."

The only thing I would add and that's not a critique to you per se, but more of a general observation about arguments on the Caf, is that people always forget about wages and the cost they add. Just a simple example: £100k/week = £5.2m per year. Over 3 years = £15.6m, and that's without bonuses and any other rewards.

So, even a "cheap" failure in terms of a transfer fee (like Bravo) is most likely an additional few millions in wages. And that's if we assume that City doesn't also pay "under the table" (like they did with Mancini).

 

[Daydreamer]

It's a 2 horse race. He has a 50% chance of winning nearly every year. Last year the owner of the other horse spancelled it so it wasn't able to keep up.

You’re having a ‘mare.

The wiki entry for La Liga conveniently lists the Champions since 2010:

Barca - 7
Real - 3
Athletico - 2

And Zidane won two of those leagues for Real. La Liga isn’t a two-horse race. And even if it was, that doesn’t mean he had a 50% chance of winning - that’s not how that works.

This thread is awesome. Accomplishments apparently don’t count if:

You spend money
Have good players
Manage a team that has won the title in the last ten years

I thought deriding Pep because he’s won only two Champions Leagues was odd. Now it’s not that impressive to win it three times on the trot - something literally no other manager has even come close to. Because he had good players?!?
———
Schmeichel
van der Saar

Stam
Ferdinand
Vidic

Beckham
Scholes
Keane
Giggs

Rooney
Ronaldo
———
Ferguson’s two Champions League wins featured some of the finest players I’ve seen during my lifetime. Many of them bought for giant transfer fees (Ferdinand at £30m would be over Maguire’s £80 in today’s prices). Do those trophies not count?

This is the thread that keeps on giving.

 

[el3mel]

Some people will, some people will not.

What you see as proof of Pep's and Zidane's greatness, I and many others see as a reflection of how unbelievably good Messi and Ronaldo were and what amazing supporting casts they had around them.

They both (Pep and Zidane) still have plenty of time to prove us wrong, though.

Pep and Zidane don't have to prove anything to anyone though. I mean not like they care that much about opinions of people on internet forums whether positive or negative.

 

[Hound Dog]

Pep and Zidane don't have to prove anything to anyone though. I mean not like they care that much about opinions of people on internet forums whether positive or negative.

Not sure what you are aiming at, no one has to do anything other than die.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Not sure what you are aiming at, no one has to do anything other than die.

He means that even if they were both to retire today, they’ve already written their names in history as all time greats, no matter what you may think.

 

[Oranges038]

This isn't true. It sounds true, and it's a reasonable thing to infer. But if you look at the numbers, it is not true. At all.

Which is the problem with half the arguments here, they're reasonable inferences that don't actually match the real world. Then people, instead of throwing away the argument, seek to throw away the world.

You’re having a ‘mare.

The wiki entry for La Liga conveniently lists the Champions since 2010:

Barca - 7
Real - 3
Athletico - 2

And Zidane won two of those leagues for Real. La Liga isn’t a two-horse race. And even if it was, that doesn’t mean he had a 50% chance of winning - that’s not how that works.

This thread is awesome. Accomplishments apparently don’t count if:

You spend money
Have good players
Manage a team that has won the title in the last ten years

I thought deriding Pep because he’s won only two Champions Leagues was odd. Now it’s not that impressive to win it three times on the trot - something literally no other manager has even come close to. Because he had good players?!?
———
Schmeichel
van der Saar

Stam
Ferdinand
Vidic

Beckham
Scholes
Keane
Giggs

Rooney
Ronaldo
———
Ferguson’s two Champions League wins featured some of the finest players I’ve seen during my lifetime. Many of them bought for giant transfer fees (Ferdinand at £30m would be over Maguire’s £80 in today’s prices). Do those trophies not count?

This is the thread that keeps on giving.

The league didn't start in 2010.
In 90 years Barca and Real have won 60 titles between them. Only 7 other teams have won it. In contrast 24 clubs have won the English top flight.

It is and has always been pretty much a two horse race.

I never said that the trophies don't count.

I think Pep is a great coach. But his achievements are overstated especially when you consider the resources he's had available particularly Bayern and City.

I don't think Zidane is a great coach. He's only done it for 4 years and managed a world class squad he even didn't have to try and build. He got ready made success handed to him.

 

[el3mel]

Not sure what you are aiming at, no one has to do anything other than die.

You're saying they have time to prove you wrong on certain point. Well, yeah not really. They don't need to prove anyone on internet right or wrong, and I doubt both care that much what's the view on them on internet. Zidane doesn't need to prove to anyone that his achievements weren't due to Ronaldo alone, why would he even care about such thing ?

 

[Daydreamer]

The league didn't start in 2010.
In 90 years Barca and Real have won 60 titles between them. Only 7 other teams have won it. In contrast 24 clubs have won the English top flight.

It is and has always been pretty much a two horse race.

I never said that the trophies don't count.

I think Pep is a great coach. But his achievements are overstated especially when you consider the resources he's had available particularly Bayern and City.

I don't think Zidane is a great coach. He's only done it for 4 years and managed a world class squad he even didn't have to try and build. He got ready made success handed to him.

Real are obviously a the most successful club in La Liga history. But the idea that he had a 50/50 chance of winning a two-horse race when minus his wins Real would have had one title in twelve years is... odd.

Real have great players - plus one of the greatest of all time. But they don’t have a monopoly on great players. Nobody has three successive Champion Leagues and two League titles handed to them. In fact, literally no one has ever done such a thing.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I acknowledge your point about it only being four years, though. I am interest to see where he’ll go next. Juve would have been an obvious choice. I can see his man management style and legendary French status being a good fit for PSG.

Like Pep, his brilliant start means he’s unlikely to drop down a level for a long time.

 

[Ish]

He faced Deportivo La Coruna and Monaco after making it past us in the QFs due to a Scholes goal that was wrongly ruled off.

He won it with an unfancied team against unfancied teams, with the likes of Deco and Carvalho and Baia who were far from bums.

Very great accomplishment for Porto, but the field couldn't have been more favorable.

Aye, feels like “context” only matters to some when it suits a certain agenda/view.

 

[NasirTimothy]

The league didn't start in 2010.
In 90 years Barca and Real have won 60 titles between them. Only 7 other teams have won it. In contrast 24 clubs have won the English top flight.

It is and has always been pretty much a two horse race.

I never said that the trophies don't count.

I think Pep is a great coach. But his achievements are overstated especially when you consider the resources he's had available particularly Bayern and City.

I don't think Zidane is a great coach. He's only done it for 4 years and managed a world class squad he even didn't have to try and build. He got ready made success handed to him.

If it was ready made success handed to him, then why did Rafa Benitez (a very capable manager as I’m sure you’re aware) last less than 30 games with the exact same squad? You’re being unreasonable.

 

[NasirTimothy]

You’re having a ‘mare.

The wiki entry for La Liga conveniently lists the Champions since 2010:

Barca - 7
Real - 3
Athletico - 2

And Zidane won two of those leagues for Real. La Liga isn’t a two-horse race. And even if it was, that doesn’t mean he had a 50% chance of winning - that’s not how that works.

This thread is awesome. Accomplishments apparently don’t count if:

You spend money
Have good players
Manage a team that has won the title in the last ten years

I thought deriding Pep because he’s won only two Champions Leagues was odd. Now it’s not that impressive to win it three times on the trot - something literally no other manager has even come close to. Because he had good players?!?
———
Schmeichel
van der Saar

Stam
Ferdinand
Vidic

Beckham
Scholes
Keane
Giggs

Rooney
Ronaldo
———
Ferguson’s two Champions League wins featured some of the finest players I’ve seen during my lifetime. Many of them bought for giant transfer fees (Ferdinand at £30m would be over Maguire’s £80 in today’s prices). Do those trophies not count?

This is the thread that keeps on giving.

Re the bolded, the mind boggles doesn’t it? I want some of what these dudes are smoking….

 

[mu4c_20le]

This thread is awesome. Accomplishments apparently don’t count if:

You spend money
Have good players
Manage a team that has won the title in the last ten years

I thought deriding Pep because he’s won only two Champions Leagues was odd. Now it’s not that impressive to win it three times on the trot - something literally no other manager has even come close to. Because he had good players?!?

Which is more impressive, Pep winning it twice with the greatest Barca team in the history, or Mourinho with Porto and Inter?

 

[Dave Smith]

The problem with Pep is his CL record, that is why people still question him. I mean he really should only have one CL title as Barca only beat Chelsea in 2009 due to the worst referring performance ever and 2011. Since then, in has had 9 other goes at it with either the favourite or one of the top three favourites and has been knocked out by average teams or been hammered by good ones.

Now, of course his league achievements are amazing and give him the right to be in the conversation for the title of a great coach. However, the context of his career and how good he is, does need to be tempered with the squads he has walked into and the money he has been given to add/change it.

For me, the greatest managerial achievement is still Clough taking a historically Div.2 team to back to back European Cups.

 

[Maluco]

Yeah but Pep improved all of those players remember. They were mostly borderline non league until then.

Could hardly kick a ball and Pellegrini had them just outside the bottom 3!!

 

[footballistic orgasm]

Which is more impressive, Pep winning it twice with the greatest Barca team in the history, or Mourinho with Porto and Inter?

His Barca is considered the greatest, not the one before, so he was responsible for making them the greatest.

Inter had world-class players and had spent a lot, that Inter wasn't the underdog that some are trying to make them. That's why they sacked Mancini and got Mourinho, because they felt that Mancini was underachieving.
Porto really had a favourable run and should have been eliminated by United, but you can only beat who's in front of you winning the CL for Porto is still impressive. But they also had very good players that weren't just average players that Mourinho took to a CL final and won.

 

[Halftrack]

His Barca is considered the greatest, not the one before, so he was responsible for making them the greatest.

Inter had world-class players and had spent a lot, that Inter wasn't the underdog that some are trying to make them. That's why they sacked Mancini and got Mourinho, because they felt that Mancini was underachieving.
Porto really had a favourable run and should have been eliminated by United, but you can only beat who's in front of you winning the CL for Porto is still impressive. But they also had very good players that weren't just average players that Mourinho took to a CL final and won.

Kind of funny this. You're vehemently defending Pep from those to try to take away from his achievements, then you make this post. Ironic, one might call it.