Condensed for ease of reading.
Agree re Yaya, Kompany to a point (although I thought it was more Pep just wanted a different profile but probably found it hard to phase him out given his influence/status, he didn't leave for many seasons still).
Don't agree on Silva (he's had an awesome season prior), KDB (he'd come from Wolfsberg setting a BL record for assists in the season) and that season with Pellgrini he got 16 goals, 13 assists with City. Pep definitely should get credit for Fernandinho as he knows that sitting DM role super well and I agree it was post pellegrini we really talked about him as best in the league. Aguero I still think was elite but obviously had injury issues.
I'm not sure Pep doesn't get credit for the team he's created, he gets a huge amount of plaudits. I will point out that even with heavy spending when he came in, he didn't really do much better than Pellegrini in that season until you sanctioned that bonkers window, bought him a whole back 5 and Bernardo Silva and then steamrolled the league. You were 3rd in the league, Arsenal knocked you out in the semis of the FA cup, we knocked you out of the League Cup early on and you had the disaster in the CL. These days I think most people are wise to the myth of managers needing multiple seasons to put a style in place, it all about recruitment quality and I think City had the best squad in the league (literally just go back through the predictions for that period, you are always 1st or 2nd with Chelsea, people mostly also have Aguero as top scorer). Also all managers have the same issue and the league was so open, just look at Conte; came in, put a tactical system in place after a few games went south, and dominated immediately getting near the record points total.
I also think, and I'd be interested if you agree, it took much longer than expected for you to win the CL when you think of the financial state/lack of competition outside of Real/ Bayern these last 5+ years. That's not to take away from winning it, I think you will win it again this year, but I don't think it's that impressive* if you look at the level of spending and knock out trophy return outside of the league cup. Until last season when you beat us in the final (and let's be honest, we're quite average), you only won the FA cup once when every other big team was on the other side of the draw (not your fault, just a fact) and your route was Newport and Swansea or something. Then the CL obviously there are quite a lot of examples of games you should have won where either Pep tries something a bit different and it doesn't work.
*this is without even going into the fact that is looks likely that the team that has been built and won all these trophies will have been done so by cheating.
Good post, as I said there is no doubt that there were quality players in that squad as you would expect from a CL qualifying team in the English top flight. I'm just trying to provide the context that the general consensus were that due to various reasons that squad wasn't in as good of a shape as some like to state. Fitness, aging, underperformance over a significant period of time is easy to write off as a blip now when we have all the answers, but at the time there were serious question marks around many of these players. The point I want to make clear that the elevation most of these same players got under Guardiola was unlike anything they had shown previously, despite many of them verging on world-class at various point in their career. That is how remarkable the 2017/18 season was, it felt like a transformation, and most importantly it wasn't a explosion for one season but he has largely made it the norm and the culture in the current squad.
This is also why I can't agree about Guardiola's first season in comparision with Pellegrini's last. He might not have done much better result-wise but the way he tried to evolve the team were pretty clear. As I said we had just gone through a cycle with a manager where we had devolved into having no clear style of play at all, falling behind other teams in the work we put in on the pitch, had one of the oldest squads in the league with a dressing-room that downed tools for two managers that had won them leagues already. The best european teams and their usage of the modern football traits as pressing, posession and interpretation of space felt a million miles away at that point, despite us somewhat luckily making the semis in the CL the year before.
Considering all of this, Pep actually did have somewhat of a heavy task at hand, implementing all of these elements into a squad not familiar with it, while also expected to win with most of the same squad that had visibly fallen behind other teams not only result-wise but on the pitch.
It might be a myth that it takes a season to implement a new style for even the best coaches but it is still a process. You saw huge changes and differences already from the first game that year, and the players seemed massively reinvigorated. But there is also different factors. Not everyone was suited for it. Dynamics changes through a season. When implementing something new bad results, bad moments can linger longer and need more time on the training ground to work through. The changes were clear, and the positives were there for all to see, but there were too much difficulties that season to overcome them in terms of winning a league title. It could have been different, we felt more like a title-challenger that year than the year previous but on the whole we just weren't good enough. Easiest way to answer this is that look on the years that followed. Pep was absolutely right to focus on developing the style, the young inexperienced players we had signed under him or immidiatly preceeding him (Stones, Sterling, Sane, Jesus), and develop the existing key players in their new roles in the system, rather than going pragmatic and perhaps get closer to a very good Chelsea team. Those decisions has reaped benefits for us years later.
Conte did do it differently yeah, he took over a similiar squad, and made the changes necessary to tactically completely run over the league. Conte in my opinion deserves to be up there with Klopp and Pep when you think about how they evolved the Premier League tactically in those critical years. So in isolation Conte certainly had a better season in 16/17 than Pep (and everyone else) but you can't see these things in isolation. The developments and choises Pep made set us up for years, while Conte only lasted another season.
And perhaps Pep needed that "bonkers" window to complete the transformation of the team. But when you look at the squad, the identifying of targets were completely sensible. We needed a younger keeper that could support his style. So he signed Ederson for a lot of money. No one at thatvpoint considered him anything like the best keeper in the world, but we identified and signed him for what Benfica wanted. We hadn't spent money on full-backs since signing Gael Clichy for 6 million in 2011. So we signed the best full-backs we could get our hands on. Mendy was very highly regarded but as we all know he hardly played at all because of injuries and then later stuff that was completely out of Guardiolas hands. Walker came at a premium from Tottenham, where he had plenty of good seasons in a good team but he as well were nothing like the Kyle Walker he is today. Considering all our existing full-backs had left that summer Danilo also got signed. Certainly a huge change-up in the defensive section of the squad but hardly the new back five you called it. Necessary transfers paid for by a premium. Other then that the only other signing were a brilliant one in Bernardo Silva, that came for a much more sensible fee. Important to be aware that the fees in football were in the midst of exploding at this point, and City can obviously be blamed for that but I'm not sure it can be used against Pep. The market were much the same for most clubs. Go back to the summer of 17 and look at the outlay the other top clubs had to put up for the targets they had identified.
Yes, your CL point is largely true. It took longer than expected considering our recruitment style and building of the current state of the club started in 2008. It was certainly the main objective for the board for years before we won it. But the truth is it never felt close before Pep. We could have won it in both 18 and 19, but it is still a knock-out tournament. There is various factors like luck and timing involved. That great City side got knocked out in the quarters against a brilliant Liverpool (in two legs filled with controversial refereeing), and a very good Tottenham side (where the winning goal should never have stood) and on paper that semi under Pellegrini looks better but in reality that just isn't true.
We should have won the final against Chelsea though, that is the one I blame on Pep because of his set-up. But largely in the CL format, I consider the hallmark of a great manager to be to continue to put the team in great positions every year, rather than actually getting over the line. There is too many factors involved.
