'Pep' Guardiola sack watch

[el3mel]

Liverpool destroy your point to be honest. Name more than one team who you think are ‘better’ than City?

CL has always been a competition where you see consistency in the great teams. Juve got to 3 finals in row early 90s, United got to 3 of 4, Bayern then got to 3/4, then Madrid got to 4/5, Pool now 3/5 and you then look at the league and see it’s not like Pool are another level above City or have spent more…there’s something not quite working out as it should AND that’s with favourable CL draws for City!

Speaking of the FA cup, have you looked the draw City got the single time they won it under Pep? There is something about his tactics, management style or the mentality of players he buys that struggles with high pressure KO football when matched against a relatively ‘even’ opponent.

Liverpool played Inter, Benfica and Villareal during their run to the final this year. City would have reached the final too taking this route.

United in 2009 faced Inter, Porto and Arsenal, and in 2011 we faced Marseille, Chelsea and Schalke, I'm sorry, but it would have been ridiculous imo if we haven't reached the final in both situations.

Having a good draw plays a huge part in these things.

Yes, Guardiola fecked up in his first 2-3 years with City in Europe against teams that he should have beat but last 2 seasons they're becoming consistently good in the competition. They reached the final last season and this year reached the semi getting KOed by Real Madrid in the dying minutes. There's nothing preventing them from reaching other finals the next upcoming years. At the end of the day, before these 3 finals Liverpool, their last one was in 2005, and for United, before 2008, we hadn't reached the final since 1999. City might be starting their good period in Europe.

 

[stefan92]

No not all of them of course.

But equally do you also not accept it plays a part?

I mean these last two games against Madrid. Madrid have got fairly lucky there haven't they?

I really want to blame Pep for allcof it because I've always said the praise he gets is too much.

But he's had some comically bad luck in the tournament.

Bit like Mourinho in his first stint with Chelsea.

It's a difficult question. You can attribute most of their failures to bad luck, that's true.

But when you look at 10 years don't you wonder why every season someone is lucky against Pep? And think about if there is am underlying reason for that?

 

[Cascarino]

I think there's a few factors for why he hasn't achieved European success at City, luck is absolutely one of them as all European success involve some modicum of luck, but I think the other big reason is the way they approach the game. While it's obviously delivered them brilliant league results, I think it's worked against them at key moments in European ties.

The way City play is incredibly hard to achieve. Every facet of their game is meticulously organised, both in terms of what they do on the ball and where they should be off it. They stringently pass it out from the back, but eschew the mindless back and forth between defenders that many other sides employ and instead have genuine progressive minded thinking when playing it out, as well as their defenders often being found very high up the pitch it also involves a lot of coordinated movement from their other players, constantly moving and offering different outlets to keep the ball progressing, rarely sharing the same vertical corridor, and there'll always be players in key positions out wide for the switch to stop the approach being too uniform. Having no traditional striker allows them to be positionally fluid in a way that makes defending against them very hard, and while they're very good at ball retention it's not without purpose, very few sides can create as many chances as this City side. Defensively playing so high and with a very drilled and precise press they suffocate the opposition after losing the ball, and even if they don't manage to regain it the way they stagger their defensive lines makes it very hard to play through them, and trying to exploit the high line with a long ball is difficult as Walker is so adept at countering this.

All of this leads to a site that plays great football and is a nightmare to play against, and the league format lends itself to a comfort zone in which the balance of probabilities means City will usually win, and mistakes and losses can be rectified over the course of the 38 games. In Europe at certain key moments I think this City side have been rattled. And it's not an indictment of the players, maintaining such consistency in the league season after season shows mentality. The way they play is so meticulous though, involving precise decision making and composure and set up in a way that mistakes can be heavily punished. Once the situation deteriorates it's very difficult to try and maintain the same approach with the same confidence, they become slightly more hesitant, decision making starts slipping slightly and the urge to deviate from their usual style and revert to something less risky, if ultimately less potent will be hard to resist. Madrid were out for the count, they looked aimless towards the end of the leg, Camavinga and Rodrygo added impetus and two sucker punch goals and you could see the confidence from this City side dissipate.

With his Barcelona side, I think the main two reasons that they had the European success that this City side hasn't yet is that the Barcelona side Guardiola moulded are the best in modern times and could dominate games like no other side I've seen and legendary players. The other is that football sides are a lot more adept at playing Guardiola sides. He changes and tweaks his approach often, the way his City side play now is pretty different to City of a couple seasons ago, but many of the underlying philosophies are still there.

 

[kaiser1]

Leading before full time is completely irrelevant unless you manage to hold on for the victory, he & his team were simply incapable of doing so, they and him are not good enough where and when it matters most, that is just a fact.

Will you say Fergusons methods worked in Europe when he only won twice one a 90th minute scramble and other by penalty shootouts

 

[tomaldinho1]

Liverpool played Inter, Benfica and Villareal during their run to the final this year. City would have reached the final too taking this route.

United in 2009 faced Inter, Porto and Arsenal, and in 2011 we faced Marseille, Chelsea and Schalke, I'm sorry, but it would have been ridiculous imo if we haven't reached the final in both situations.

Having a good draw plays a huge part in these things.

Yes, Guardiola fecked up in his first 2-3 years with City in Europe against teams that he should have beat but last 2 seasons they're becoming consistently good in the competition. They reached the final last season and this year reached the semi getting KOed by Real Madrid in the dying minutes. There's nothing preventing them from reaching other finals the next upcoming years. At the end of the day, before these 3 finals Liverpool, their last one was in 2005, and for United, before 2008, we hadn't reached the final since 1999. City might be starting their good period in Europe.

I have no doubt City are going to be always around the knock outs in Europe and likely win it very soon, there just isn’t enough competition to stop them when you look at the teams that used to be great and their comparative finances.

The point is you beat who you’re drawn against and they have had very good draws so I don’t really get how your examples of other teams runs is relevant (because United did get to the final).

There is currently no better seat than City for domestic and European domination, now it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever see a manager win loads of CLs but to have zero when you’re in that seat AND have had good draws AND there is less and less competition makes me think criticism is fair.

 

[MUW4Eva]

Will you say Fergusons methods worked in Europe when he only won twice one a 90th minute scramble and other by penalty shootouts

They worked because we won yes, it is irrelevant how you win, as long as you do just that.

History is written by the victors after all.

By not winning, it proves that your methods do not work, anyone saying vice-versa that win is a defeat, and a defeat is a win, is quite bizarre to say the least.

 

[kaiser1]

They worked because we won yes, it is irrelevant how you win, as long as you do just that.

History is written by the victors after all.

By not winning, it proves that your methods do not work, anyone saying vice-versa that win is a defeat, and a defeat is a win, is quite bizarre to say the least.

Ferguson won the same number of CL as Pep and lost 2 finals comprehensively to the same Pep whose methods do not work in Europe

 

[The Corinthian]

Will you say Fergusons methods worked in Europe when he only won twice one a 90th minute scramble and other by penalty shootouts

We also dominated in terms of possession, corners, ‘control’.

It’s a similar story vs our game with Chelsea.

 

[MUW4Eva]

Ferguson won the same number of CL as Pep and lost 2 finals comprehensively to the same Pep whose methods do not work in Europe

If you have read what I have said, what I have said is that Pep's methods don't work at City.

All managers have a shelf live, just like players, managers have peaks, and Pep is passed his peak as a manager.

 

[stefan92]

Ferguson won the same number of CL as Pep and lost 2 finals comprehensively to the same Pep whose methods do not work in Europe

His United never was as dominant in the league as Pep’s City or Bayern teams. So it is fair to expect more from Pep than from SAF in the CL.

And SAF was successful over time with different squads, so he wasn't as dependent on won player as Pep is often claimed to Messi.

 

[Sandikan]

Ederson isn't a good goalkeeper, he is average at best

You think anyone is stopping King Benzema from lifting the trophy??
He is bang in form, he is nigh on impossible to stop right now.

Real Madrid will win the final, they just have unstoppable momentim.

I hope you're right pal, I really do!

At least it'll be an actual final this time, instead of that cakewalk against tottenham!

 

[padr81]

I have no doubt City are going to be always around the knock outs in Europe and likely win it very soon, there just isn’t enough competition to stop them when you look at the teams that used to be great and their comparative finances.

The point is you beat who you’re drawn against and they have had very good draws so I don’t really get how your examples of other teams runs is relevant (because United did get to the final).

There is currently no better seat than City for domestic and European domination, now it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever see a manager win loads of CLs but to have zero when you’re in that seat AND have had good draws AND there is less and less competition makes me think criticism is fair.

City have only once had a "good" draw. The season they went out to Spurs
16/17 - Monaco, Dortmund, Juve, Real. (Monaco had beaten PSG to the L1 title, super tough draw)
17/18 - Basel, Liverpool, Roma, Madrid (Kind of average CL draw, 2 big guns, 2 should be winning)
18/19 - Schalke, Spurs, Ajax, Liverpool. (The one that got away, should have at least made the final here.)
19/20 - Real, Lyon, Bayern, PSG (Went out to a Lyon team they should beat but a super tough draw)
20/21 - Mochengladbach, Dortmund, PSG, Chelsea (Kind of average CL draw most teams get)
21/22- Sporting, Atletico, Real, Liverpool (3 big guns in 4 of the games, super tough draw, albeit not as tough as Reals.)

18/19 was the only easy draw and that was decided by a handball so blatant they changed the rules for the following season.

 

[Marwood]

How did Real Madrid get beat in both 90 minute games??
What happened in the first leg is only relevant when it comes to looking at the overall picture.

Winning a first leg means nothing, it is like being up at half time, as that is all it is.

Real Madrid won the tie fair and square, and as such are through to the final.

City not playing to the final whistle, that isn't Real Madrid's fault, so why try and demean them for that??

Demean them?

Luck exists you know. It plays a part from time to time. Like it did for us in '99. Nothing demeaning about saying so.

Claiming Pep is tactically behind the times without explaining what these modern tactics are would be demeaning.

 

[MUW4Eva]

Demean them?

Luck exists you know. It plays a part from time to time. Like it did for us in '99. Nothing demeaning about saying so.

Claiming Pep is tactically behind the times without explaining what these modern tactics are would be demeaning.

Luck exists of course, point to me specifically where I have said that it doesn't....I will wait......

 

[Mshafeek]

They were unlucky at times, yes, but the way they played the 2nd leg probably has all the answers to Pep's CL conundrum with city. Haven't got the time to rewatch and point to specifics but there was definite differences in tactical approach between both the legs. I feel that they would've got through if they had just played the same way as the 1st leg. What people point out as Pep's overthinking is real - don't know whether it was that or the players' underperformance that took out the sting they had in the first leg.

 

[giorno]

They were unlucky at times, yes, but the way they played the 2nd leg probably has all the answers to Pep's CL conundrum with city. Haven't got the time to rewatch and point to specifics but there was definite differences in tactical approach between both the legs. I feel that they would've got through if they had just played the same way as the 1st leg. What people point out as Pep's overthinking is real - don't know whether it was that or the players' underperformance that took out the sting they had in the first leg.

It seems the plan was to play like the first leg. Players just couldn't do it

 

[SAFMUTD]

Of Guardiola's 11 Champions League eliminations, EIGHT have seen decisive periods that were sudden collapses/flurries of goals conceded

2010 - 2 in 13 minutes
2014 - 3 in 18
2015 - 3 in 17
2017 - 2 in 8
2018- 3 in 19
2019- 2 in 3
2020- 2 in 8
2022- 3 in 6

That's quite some stat.

 

[kaiser1]

If you have read what I have said, what I have said is that Pep's methods don't work at City.

All managers have a shelf live, just like players, managers have peaks, and Pep is passed his peak as a manager.

Do managers past their shelf life still make top 4 in CL

 

[Marwood]

Luck exists of course, point to me specifically where I have said that it doesn't....I will wait......

I've asked you a bunch of questions you haven't replied to so it's not me we're waiting on for answers is it?

My point was that everybody gets a bit of good luck at times. You think it's "demeaning" to suggest so. Suggests you have an odd view of what luck is if you think it's a criticism.

 

[united_99]

Will you say Fergusons methods worked in Europe when he only won twice one a 90th minute scramble and other by penalty shootouts

I can‘t remember us being outplayed by any team when we won in 99 and 08, no ref mistakes either, infact we didn‘t get some decisions we should have (your players were offside twice in our group stage game in 99 and the goal was still awarded), we remained unbeaten in the CL in both seasons and won the competition. We absolutely deserved it. Some tight results/games/luck? Sure, that‘s mostly the case in the CL as you play against some of the best teams in Europe.
Even the final in 99 where people have this weird perception that it was a one-sided final just because we scored two late goals is completely false as we had more possession, more or same amount of total shots, more shots on target and even more corners than you. And that was by the way without Keane and Scholes, our two best players in terms of possession and control.

So putting it the way you did is just being bitter.

 

[kaiser1]

I can‘t remember us being outplayed by any team when we won in 99 and 08, no ref mistakes either, infact we didn‘t get some decisions we should have (your players were offside twice in our group stage game in 99 and the goal was still awarded), we remained unbeaten in the CL in both seasons and won the competition. We absolutely deserved it. Some tight results/games/luck? Sure, that‘s mostly the case in the CL as you play against some of the best teams in Europe.
Even the final in 99 where people have this weird perception that it was a one-sided final just because we scored two late goals is completely false as we had more possession, more or same amount of total shots, more shots on target and even more corners than you. And that was by the way without Keane and Scholes, our two best players in terms of possession and control.

So putting it the way you did is just being bitter.

Man city over the 2 legs vs Madrid had more shots on target actually on Wednesday Madrid's first shot on target was in the 90th minute, yet the claim is that Pep's method did not work when almost the same scenario happened in 1999 final
In 1999, We were without Lizarazu and Elber. who were our first choice LB and Striker

 

[united_99]

Man city over the 2 legs vs Madrid had more shots on target actually on Wednesday Madrid's first shot on target was in the 90th minute, yet the claim is that Pep's method did not work when almost the same scenario happened in 1999 final
In 1999, We were without Lizarazu and Elber. who were our first choice LB and Striker

I am not interested in the Pep vs SAF discussion, for me SAF is the best but Pep is also great and if other people think he is better then so what.
I was just pointing out that our CL wins were so much more than what you were trying to claim.

 

[tomaldinho1]

City have only once had a "good" draw. The season they went out to Spurs
16/17 - Monaco, Dortmund, Juve, Real. (Monaco had beaten PSG to the L1 title, super tough draw)
17/18 - Basel, Liverpool, Roma, Madrid (Kind of average CL draw, 2 big guns, 2 should be winning)
18/19 - Schalke, Spurs, Ajax, Liverpool. (The one that got away, should have at least made the final here.)
19/20 - Real, Lyon, Bayern, PSG (Went out to a Lyon team they should beat but a super tough draw)
20/21 - Mochengladbach, Dortmund, PSG, Chelsea (Kind of average CL draw most teams get)
21/22- Sporting, Atletico, Real, Liverpool (3 big guns in 4 of the games, super tough draw, albeit not as tough as Reals.)

18/19 was the only easy draw and that was decided by a handball so blatant they changed the rules for the following season.

I don't really get the format above?

Just looking at the seeded v unseeded team (and removing the team you were in a group with + PL teams as you can't draw them R16 but you can in the QF). For example let me know if the below is correct in calculating who you could have played?

16/17. Drew Monaco of Dortmund, Monaco, Juve, Napoli, Atletico. Decent draw, avoided Atletico/Juve but you'd have preferred Napoli/Dortmund. Still, favourites against Monaco.
17/18. Drew Basel of Real, Juve, Porto, Sevilla, Atletico, Bayern then drew Pool of Bayern, Sevilla, Juve, Real, Barca, Roma. Remembering Pool in 17/18 finished 25 points behind you in the league, got knocked out the FA cup by WBA and the EFL cup by Leicester. Amazing R16 draw, good QF draw.

 

[V.O.]

Will you say Fergusons methods worked in Europe when he only won twice one a 90th minute scramble and other by penalty shootouts

If last minute goals and shootouts don't count, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for your 2001 and 2013 trophies back, mate.

Empty stadiums isn't quite "right", either is it? 2020 looking pretty questionable as well.

 

[Red Star One]

Pep's record in the CL after Barça
SF (Real Madrid)
SF (Barcelona)
SF (Atletico)
L16 (Monaco Away Goals)
QF (Liverpool)
QF (Spurs Away Goals)
QF (Lyon)
RU - (Chelsea)
SF - (Real Madrid)

He's competed in the Champions League 9 times,
0 wins
1 final

Adjusted for his post-Barça period, it’s an abysmal record considering in these 9 CL runs his teams, both Bayern and City were considered heavy favorites - check bookies odds on City in the last few seasons! Bayern was winning CLs with other managers and arguably worse teams, in City he has all the resources he could dream of yet he can’t win a single European trophy in so many years. We laugh at the fact that PSG can’t buy the CL and criticize their managers, but Pep for some reason is getting a free pass. One final (lost to a worse team principally due to Pep’s mistakes) in nine years and consistent collapses of his teams are a fact - his awful record in Europe after initial domination with one-of-a-kind Barça side rules him out of all GOAT debates. I’ve been saying this for years now, but he’s not winning another CL in his life.

 

[Maluco]

Absolutely ridiculous to compare Pep to Ferguson. You could easily argue that the only two times Ferguson built sides with legit claims to be the best in Europe, he won it.

I would never take away from his excellent work at Barcelona and the team he built there, but he had the best team in Europe at Bayern and got humiliated at stages. He also has had every conceivable advantage possible at City, and nothing. It’s not a level playing field to compare the two.

You need luck, but you also need to know how to see out games and make the best in game decisions and he has had great teams and failed to do just that year on year.

 

[GMok]

100%, the narrative about Pep as a manager is a disgrace but expected from the jealous ones.

Pep's record in the CL
Win
SF (Joses Inter)
Win
SF (Chelsea)
SF (Real Madrid)
SF (Barcelona)
SF (Atletico)
L16 (Monaco Away Goals)
QF (Liverpool)
QF (Spurs Away Goals)
QF (Lyon)
RU - (Chelsea)
SF - (Real Madrid)

He's competed in the Champions League 13 times,
2 Wins
3 Finals
6 Semi Finals

Only the back to back seasons vs Spurs and Lyon at City are blemishes imho and the Spurs one was incredibly unlucky even according to the CAF at the time.

Completely agree with your point here. Just to add, I think you were unlucky against Liverpool as well with the refereeing decisions in the second leg. I watched that game and City had Liverpool on the ropes in the first half.

Also, that SF loss against Atletico is nothing to be ashamed off. Bayern played one of their finest ever game in the second leg and won 2-1. But that Atletico was a tough nut to crack and hung on for a victory with the away goal rule. IIRC, Simeone said it was the best football that any team played against his team.

Pep sometimes overthinks the game (vs Lyon is a good example) but Wednesday night was not one. Looking back at the match, I have to redact my assertion of him getting the subs wrong. He got both the subs and the tactics right, but individual mistakes and the ungodly forces behind Real helped them to snatch the tie.

 

[padr81]

I don't really get the format above?

Just looking at the seeded v unseeded team (and removing the team you were in a group with + PL teams as you can't draw them R16 but you can in the QF). For example let me know if the below is correct in calculating who you could have played?

16/17. Drew Monaco of Dortmund, Monaco, Juve, Napoli, Atletico. Decent draw, avoided Atletico/Juve but you'd have preferred Napoli/Dortmund. Still, favourites against Monaco.
17/18. Drew Basel of Real, Juve, Porto, Sevilla, Atletico, Bayern then drew Pool of Bayern, Sevilla, Juve, Real, Barca, Roma. Remembering Pool in 17/18 finished 25 points behind you in the league, got knocked out the FA cup by WBA and the EFL cup by Leicester. Amazing R16 draw, good QF draw.

But that doesn't reflect the draw as a whole. I mean you can't take 1 game as an entire draw.
You're logic Liverpool weren't a great team because they came 25 points off the title is the opposite logic you are applying to Monaco who beat PSG to the title in a one horse race (that horse was PSG). If you do the same math for all other title teams you'll get the same results. It doesn't matter who beat them, the season we played Liverpool in the QF they made the final of the CL. Was the final a good draw for Real? The semi's a good draw for Roma?

Chelsea pulled Porto in the last 8 last season, sure its not the toughest game but in context, they had Atletico, Porto, Real and City (that's a really tough draw even if Porto themselves aren't world beaters)
Bayern played Lyon in the semi final the season before when they won it. Their draw was Chelsea, Barca, Lyon and PSG. Lyon whilst their easiest game (thanks to City) was one game in a tough draw.
Liverpool played Porto and Spurs (again thanks City) in 18/19. Their draw wasn't easy they also had to best Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Almost every run to winning the thing comes with 1 or 2 "should win games" and 2 or 3 against the best teams in the world, Cities have been no different. They've just fecked up the should win ones.
Real Madrid this season is the first time a team had no should win games in making the final, since well Real Madrid in 17/18. PSG, Juve, Bayern, Liverpool
For a team many accuse of having Uefa bias they have some shockingly tough draws.

But I don't think there's ever a good draw in the CL later stages. At the very least you will face two of Bayern, Real, Liverpool, Chelsea or City regardless of who you are in 4 games.
Don't get me wrong our draws haven't been tougher than anyone elses either just the same.

 

[padr81]

Adjusted for his post-Barça period, it’s an abysmal record considering in these 9 CL runs his teams, both Bayern and City were considered heavy favorites - check bookies odds on City in the last few seasons! Bayern was winning CLs with other managers and arguably worse teams, in City he has all the resources he could dream of yet he can’t win a single European trophy in so many years. We laugh at the fact that PSG can’t buy the CL and criticize their managers, but Pep for some reason is getting a free pass. One final (lost to a worse team principally due to Pep’s mistakes) in nine years and consistent collapses of his teams are a fact - his awful record in Europe after initial domination with one-of-a-kind Barça side rules him out of all GOAT debates. I’ve been saying this for years now, but he’s not winning another CL in his life.

Adjust for his non Man United period Sir Alex was in 0 finals. You can't just write off X part of someones career cause you don't like it.
Awful record in Europe even leaving aside Barca is 1 final and 4 semi finals in 9 seasons. I can't see many managers having 5 semi's or better in 9 years but I'm open and willing to listen to names.

 

[MUW4Eva]

But that doesn't reflect the draw as a whole. I mean you can't take 1 game as an entire draw.
You're logic Liverpool weren't a great team because they came 25 points off the title is the opposite logic you are applying to Monaco who beat PSG to the title in a one horse race (that horse was PSG). If you do the same math for all other title teams you'll get the same results. It doesn't matter who beat them, the season we played Liverpool in the QF they made the final of the CL. Was the final a good draw for Real? The semi's a good draw for Roma?

Chelsea pulled Porto in the last 8 last season, sure its not the toughest game but in context, they had Atletico, Porto, Real and City (that's a really tough draw even if Porto themselves aren't world beaters)
Bayern played Lyon in the semi final the season before when they won it. Their draw was Chelsea, Barca, Lyon and PSG. Lyon whilst their easiest game (thanks to City) was one game in a tough draw.
Liverpool played Porto and Spurs (again thanks City) in 18/19. Their draw wasn't easy they also had to best Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Almost every run to winning the thing comes with 1 or 2 "should win games" and 2 or 3 against the best teams in the world, Cities have been no different. They've just fecked up the should win ones.
Real Madrid this season is the first time a team had no should win games in making the final, since well Real Madrid in 17/18. PSG, Juve, Bayern, Liverpool
For a team many accuse of having Uefa bias they have some shockingly tough draws.

But I don't think there's ever a good draw in the CL later stages. At the very least you will face two of Bayern, Real, Liverpool, Chelsea or City regardless of who you are in 4 games.
Don't get me wrong our draws haven't been tougher than anyone elses either just the same.

I would love to know which teams you are categorising as "should win games" in our run to winning the tournament in 99??

Perhaps Bronby in the group, but after that??
Barcelona?? Bayern? Juventus?? Inter??

 

[MUW4Eva]

Adjust for his non Man United period Sir Alex was in 0 finals. You can't just write off X part of someones career cause you don't like it.
Awful record in Europe even leaving aside Barca is 1 final and 4 semi finals in 9 seasons. I can't see many managers having 5 semi's or better in 9 years but I'm open and willing to listen to names.

Zidane??

 

[stefan92]

Adjust for his non Man United period Sir Alex was in 0 finals. You can't just write off X part of someones career cause you don't like it.
Awful record in Europe even leaving aside Barca is 1 final and 4 semi finals in 9 seasons. I can't see many managers having 5 semi's or better in 9 years but I'm open and willing to listen to names.

Look at it a bit differently: SAF had to change and adapt his squad over a very long time and he was able to win stuff with completely different players.

Pep only led a single squad to CL glory.

 

[padr81]

I would love to know which teams you are categorising as "should win games" in our run to winning the tournament in 99??

Perhaps Bronby in the group, but after that??
Barcelona?? Bayern? Juventus?? Inter??

The format was different in 99. Didn't have a last 16. I would argue it was also a better format but uefa love money

 

[tomaldinho1]

But that doesn't reflect the draw as a whole. I mean you can't take 1 game as an entire draw.
You're logic Liverpool weren't a great team because they came 25 points off the title is the opposite logic you are applying to Monaco who beat PSG to the title in a one horse race (that horse was PSG). If you do the same math for all other title teams you'll get the same results. It doesn't matter who beat them, the season we played Liverpool in the QF they made the final of the CL. Was the final a good draw for Real? The semi's a good draw for Roma?

Chelsea pulled Porto in the last 8 last season, sure its not the toughest game but in context, they had Atletico, Porto, Real and City (that's a really tough draw even if Porto themselves aren't world beaters)
Bayern played Lyon in the semi final the season before when they won it. Their draw was Chelsea, Barca, Lyon and PSG. Lyon whilst their easiest game (thanks to City) was one game in a tough draw.
Liverpool played Porto and Spurs (again thanks City) in 18/19. Their draw wasn't easy they also had to best Barcelona and Bayern Munich.

Almost every run to winning the thing comes with 1 or 2 "should win games" and 2 or 3 against the best teams in the world, Cities have been no different. They've just fecked up the should win ones.
Real Madrid this season is the first time a team had no should win games in making the final, since well Real Madrid in 17/18. PSG, Juve, Bayern, Liverpool
For a team many accuse of having Uefa bias they have some shockingly tough draws.

But I don't think there's ever a good draw in the CL later stages. At the very least you will face two of Bayern, Real, Liverpool, Chelsea or City regardless of who you are in 4 games.
Don't get me wrong our draws haven't been tougher than anyone elses either just the same.

What does this mean? I've shown you the full draw in the example, not sure I get what you mean by 1 game?

Pool logic is because it's the same league (so a direct comparison) and a vastly better league, Monaco winning Ligue 1 and you thinking them a super tough draw would be like you thinking Lille were a super tough draw last year. Monaco under Jardim were a good team but you avoided the top teams in that draw.

This extends to the FA cup as well. The one time you won it with Pep the run was:
Rotherham > Burnley > Newport > Swansea > Brighton > Watford

 

[padr81]

Look at it a bit differently: SAF had to change and adapt his squad over a very long time and he was able to win stuff with completely different players.

Pep only led a single squad to CL glory.

Swings and roundabouts.

SAF was the best manager of all time and only did it twice in 27 years. How many finals was SAF in during those 27 years?

That alone should tell you how stupid the unrealistic expectations on Pep are. He's already matched the greatest of all times win haul and has 14 years to better it.

Are we saying Ancelotti and Zidane are better than SAF too because they put his CL record to shame. Ancelotti did it at different clubs and Zidane retained it.

Maybe we should realize it's a tough competition between lots of very strong teams and fine margins, decisions and luck all play a part.

 

[padr81]

What does this mean? I've shown you the full draw in the example, not sure I get what you mean by 1 game?

Pool logic is because it's the same league (so a direct comparison) and a vastly better league, Monaco winning Ligue 1 and you thinking them a super tough draw would be like you thinking Lille were a super tough draw last year. Monaco under Jardim were a good team but you avoided the top teams in that draw.

This extends to the FA cup as well. The one time you won it with Pep the run was:
Rotherham > Burnley > Newport > Swansea > Brighton > Watford

That was a nice fa cup draw for sure. Nothing like our cl draws.

United played Porto and Arsenal in 09 before getting schooled by Pep Arsenal finished 18 points behind you and got knocked out of the league cup by Burnley. Easy draw right?

 

[tomaldinho1]

That was a nice fa cup draw for sure. Nothing like our cl draws.

United played Porto and Arsenal in 09 before getting schooled by Pep Arsenal finished 18 points behind you and got knocked out of the league cup by Burnley. Easy draw right?

Those two were good yes. You are conveniently forgetting we beat Inter when they were good and Serie A champions in the R16 though.

From the way you’ve asked that question, it seems you expected a different answer…this is a debate about football, it’s not that important, let’s just leave any bias at the door.

 

[padr81]

Zidane??

So far he's been in the CL semi's 4 times, his only other time Peps City cruised past him in the last 16. Phenomenal record though. Of course one manager having a better record than Pep means he's a failure.

 

[padr81]

Those two were good yes. You are conveniently forgetting we beat Inter when they were good and Serie A champions in the R16 though.

From the way you’ve asked that question, it seems you expected a different answer…this is a debate about football, it’s not that important, let’s just leave any bias at the door.

I'm not forgetting. I was letting you prove my point. I was only focusing on the winnable games like you were. You played Inter, Porto, Arsenal and Barca.
Truth is when you look at the draw as a whole it was quite tough really. But its easy to cherry pick certain games and say easy draw.
The truth is a draw of Inter, Porto, Arsenal and Barca is not an easy draw but easy to twist those two middle games. Then you immediately brought up Inter to show how tough the draw was...

You also left out that Liverpool team made back to back CL finals and got 97 points the next season. Dismissing them as a good draw is nonsense.

 

[DevilRed]

We also dominated in terms of possession, corners, ‘control’.

It’s a similar story vs our game with Chelsea.

1999 was without Keano AND Scholes in midfield.

People forget that we had to play Becks and Butty in centre mid. Against a fecking amazing bayern side.

The chelski side we beat in the final was arguably their best ever team. One of the best the prem has seen too. They had a bunch of serial winners and club legends. They went on to win it all in a few years after (the cnuts).