we have Jones and Rojo? Anyway. Like others have said, not that much between us and City.
'Pep' Guardiola sack watch
- Thread starter Classical Mechanic
- Start date
we have Jones and Rojo? Anyway. Like others have said, not that much between us and City.
Enrique actually went on to win the treble with Barca as well. Which shows that with a world class team of superstars it isn't that difficult to win the top prizes. Pep not winning the CL in over 10 years also shows that Pep isn't this untouchable manager that people think he is.
He’s like Lewis Hamilton, he’s got the tools around him that make it very easy to be successful, but that doesn’t mean his own skill level doesn’t back it up.
I think Ferguson Guardiola is an interesting debate, while they have a lot of similarities they equally have very different approaches. For me I rate Ferguson as the greatest manager I have known, longevity is an important aspect when assessing a manager and his ability to have thrived in different footballing eras and being able to continuously adapt to the different environments is an incredible achievement.
I’m not sure what your argument is here? Guardiola left the team in a much better position than when he took over. The team had declined from their 05/06 success, with many of their star players having declined or left. Guardiola reinvigorated the team and placed a greater onus on a different tactical system, and more emphasis on different players. The managers who came after benefitted from the squad that was assembled and the success they had, but I’m not sure how that retroactively changes the job Guardiola did in the 2008-2009 season when he came in and ripped up the blueprint.
I’m not sure what your argument is here? Guardiola left the team in a much better position than when he took over. The team had declined from their 05/06 success, with many of their star players having declined or left. Guardiola reinvigorated the team and placed a greater onus on a different tactical system, and more emphasis on different players. The managers who came after benefitted from the squad that was assembled and the success they had, but I’m not sure how that retroactively changes the job Guardiola did in the 2008-2009 season when he came in and ripped up the blueprint.
Well, this is bollocks. The season before he got the job, Barca finished the league 3rd 18 points away from the top (Real Madrid). They got humiliated by Real Madrid this season as well losing 1-4.
It’s incredibly difficult to win a treble
Hi, everyone. I expect no offense anyone.
If you think, City´s is wining only because the oil money, maybe you are going to be other seasons under City or other interesting projects. Oil´s money made City grow in artificial way skipping many steps, as Chelsea and PSG. However, they are not wasting money anymore as the beginning of the oil´s money injection.
In Manchester City, it is not only Pep; they also signed two keys members of Laporta´s structure: Soriano and Txiki. They are doing better than other teams also with the boards members and team direction because they know exactly what they need and how they want to play. They are constructing a project and everybody inside in the organization is ON BOARD.
Pep is one of best managers in the world to give him the keys of your club to build around him a successful project through the years but they did not start when he came, they started in 2012 when Soriano was signed as CEO. Pellegrini just was a seasonal coach waiting for Pep. Manuel is an offensive coach but limited in big clubs.
I read people even justify Mancini´s job. Personally I think he made and awful job because he waste a lot of money signed trash players and not building anything to the future his Manchester City, seems like he signed every player according to trending topics or YouTube´s highlights like a teenager playing FIFA/PES. There were interesting players, after spend so much money is normal, but not direction or not a clue about what they want, even many old players whom only wanted the last big contract. Yes, he won one PL but how. Mancini was a bad coach and he failed. Compare Fist Mourinho vs Mancini, similar challenge and different results.
Pellegrini, was the first true coach of the project and he has not the personality to lead a big team. He is better in Europe League teams. He has an idea of how he want to play but it not completive enough to maintain the level or going further. He is good enough but not a winner. That´s why that team could lose two PL in three years even with a fourth place. He is just a correct coach, not more.
Pep, since the begging with him in Barcelona we compete in all tournaments with record seasons even when Barcelona was in trash before. He want to win everything and every player in the team bought that idea. Every player that he sign is because he thinks what the team needs to reach the excellence in his game. That is why also he need strong confidence of the board member because he has hostility with some players because is too square (obstinate) and then he want to change dramatically even if the player is a star (Zlatan, R10 or Eto´o). Maybe you do not like it, but it obsessive in details and want to be competitive always. Guardiola, Mourinho (First Chelsea era), LVG (Ajax, Barcelona, Bayern), etc. They are the few select coaches to start a new project, with a bunch of money, but certainly, you know that they have a vision immediately, middle and long term.
The players of the first era are gone one by one and the City is still winning. It is because Pep adapt the players in the system, not because he received a team with Toure (he sacked of Barcelona in favor of Busquets, for example), Silva (is gone), Sterling (It was with Pep when he increased the level), Aguero (missing this season), etc.
Pep has an idea and he is the best executed it. That idea is winner nowadays, unfortunately for some.
Do you really think that Pellegrini or Mancini could compete with Liverpool of the last seasons? Without Pep, Klopp would win with all the records.
Finally, the City is artificial because they grew up with oil´s money and United´s money is because the sponsors (due to be biggest club in England and one of the best in world) everyone are agree about that. However recently both clubs spend similar amounts of money and City´s Project looks stronger. I do not think that is only because the oil, they are doing well in other levels that United do not. (I am not a City supporter by the way, actually I do not like as other teams with fortunes behind).
In Barcelona without Pep and proper board members, we lost the way. Laporta is back again and it seems we are recovering. Personally, and living the Rosell/Bartomeu era in Barcelona, we learned that the key is have a strong organization and structure behind the players and coach.
That is why Bayern looks far away of all teams in Europe recently. They have the best club structure.
If you think, City´s is wining only because the oil money, maybe you are going to be other seasons under City or other interesting projects. Oil´s money made City grow in artificial way skipping many steps, as Chelsea and PSG. However, they are not wasting money anymore as the beginning of the oil´s money injection.
In Manchester City, it is not only Pep; they also signed two keys members of Laporta´s structure: Soriano and Txiki. They are doing better than other teams also with the boards members and team direction because they know exactly what they need and how they want to play. They are constructing a project and everybody inside in the organization is ON BOARD.
Pep is one of best managers in the world to give him the keys of your club to build around him a successful project through the years but they did not start when he came, they started in 2012 when Soriano was signed as CEO. Pellegrini just was a seasonal coach waiting for Pep. Manuel is an offensive coach but limited in big clubs.
I read people even justify Mancini´s job. Personally I think he made and awful job because he waste a lot of money signed trash players and not building anything to the future his Manchester City, seems like he signed every player according to trending topics or YouTube´s highlights like a teenager playing FIFA/PES. There were interesting players, after spend so much money is normal, but not direction or not a clue about what they want, even many old players whom only wanted the last big contract. Yes, he won one PL but how. Mancini was a bad coach and he failed. Compare Fist Mourinho vs Mancini, similar challenge and different results.
Pellegrini, was the first true coach of the project and he has not the personality to lead a big team. He is better in Europe League teams. He has an idea of how he want to play but it not completive enough to maintain the level or going further. He is good enough but not a winner. That´s why that team could lose two PL in three years even with a fourth place. He is just a correct coach, not more.
Pep, since the begging with him in Barcelona we compete in all tournaments with record seasons even when Barcelona was in trash before. He want to win everything and every player in the team bought that idea. Every player that he sign is because he thinks what the team needs to reach the excellence in his game. That is why also he need strong confidence of the board member because he has hostility with some players because is too square (obstinate) and then he want to change dramatically even if the player is a star (Zlatan, R10 or Eto´o). Maybe you do not like it, but it obsessive in details and want to be competitive always. Guardiola, Mourinho (First Chelsea era), LVG (Ajax, Barcelona, Bayern), etc. They are the few select coaches to start a new project, with a bunch of money, but certainly, you know that they have a vision immediately, middle and long term.
The players of the first era are gone one by one and the City is still winning. It is because Pep adapt the players in the system, not because he received a team with Toure (he sacked of Barcelona in favor of Busquets, for example), Silva (is gone), Sterling (It was with Pep when he increased the level), Aguero (missing this season), etc.
Pep has an idea and he is the best executed it. That idea is winner nowadays, unfortunately for some.
Do you really think that Pellegrini or Mancini could compete with Liverpool of the last seasons? Without Pep, Klopp would win with all the records.
Finally, the City is artificial because they grew up with oil´s money and United´s money is because the sponsors (due to be biggest club in England and one of the best in world) everyone are agree about that. However recently both clubs spend similar amounts of money and City´s Project looks stronger. I do not think that is only because the oil, they are doing well in other levels that United do not. (I am not a City supporter by the way, actually I do not like as other teams with fortunes behind).
In Barcelona without Pep and proper board members, we lost the way. Laporta is back again and it seems we are recovering. Personally, and living the Rosell/Bartomeu era in Barcelona, we learned that the key is have a strong organization and structure behind the players and coach.
That is why Bayern looks far away of all teams in Europe recently. They have the best club structure.
Or maybe because Enrique is actually a very good and underrated manager.
I'd pay good money to see anyone dig up an article or post from early 2008 predicting Guardiola's success. Since in 2021 it is a foregone conclusion to some, that that team would be considered the best team in European football this decade.
For what it’s worth if I compare let’s say Klopp to Pep and exchange their clubs I can imagine the following outcome:
Pep joins Liverpool instead of City:
I do not believe with similar players / similar spending to Klopp, Pep would have reached 2 CL finals and competed for the league title two seasons in a row - he would not have 3 high level seasons in a row
Klopp joins City instead of Liverpool:
With a similar spending to Pep, Klopp would probably have won maybe 2 league titles instead of 3, but would most likely also have reached two CL finals. I mean he would have definitely not taken 5 seasons with draws like Lyon, Spurs, Monaco to reach a semi in a season where his toughest opponents were Mönchengladbach and Dortmund’s under 20. However he probably wouldn’t have had Pep’s consistency in the league and might even have finished outside of top 3/4 in the league at least once.
I personally prefer Klopp. But this best manager ever discussions are always incredibly recency biased. For example probably one of the best managers ever around 1980 isn’t even mentioned anymore nowadays in these kind of conversations and he is just one of many examples.
Pep joins Liverpool instead of City:
I do not believe with similar players / similar spending to Klopp, Pep would have reached 2 CL finals and competed for the league title two seasons in a row - he would not have 3 high level seasons in a row
Klopp joins City instead of Liverpool:
With a similar spending to Pep, Klopp would probably have won maybe 2 league titles instead of 3, but would most likely also have reached two CL finals. I mean he would have definitely not taken 5 seasons with draws like Lyon, Spurs, Monaco to reach a semi in a season where his toughest opponents were Mönchengladbach and Dortmund’s under 20. However he probably wouldn’t have had Pep’s consistency in the league and might even have finished outside of top 3/4 in the league at least once.
I personally prefer Klopp. But this best manager ever discussions are always incredibly recency biased. For example probably one of the best managers ever around 1980 isn’t even mentioned anymore nowadays in these kind of conversations and he is just one of many examples.
Pep is a great manager. No one would argue against that who is sane.
But there is no debate between him and Ferguson.
Fergie won a European trophy with Aberdeen. He won the treble. He won titles with half his players being from the youth team. Players he produced and developed. He won titles with sides that were clearly inferior to other teams in the division. He rebuilt teams without moving the earth to do so and won titles after people had written him off.
He did things that Guardiola just can’t do. He needs the money. Nothing wrong with that, of course. It’s still impressive how he sets them up, but he is not on the same level as Ferguson, and his achievements, in their billion pound context, just don’t match up.
But there is no debate between him and Ferguson.
Fergie won a European trophy with Aberdeen. He won the treble. He won titles with half his players being from the youth team. Players he produced and developed. He won titles with sides that were clearly inferior to other teams in the division. He rebuilt teams without moving the earth to do so and won titles after people had written him off.
He did things that Guardiola just can’t do. He needs the money. Nothing wrong with that, of course. It’s still impressive how he sets them up, but he is not on the same level as Ferguson, and his achievements, in their billion pound context, just don’t match up.
We need to keep in mind, that these people who doubt his credentials, are nowhere near positions of authority in any club in any top flight league.
Pep could quit the City job tomorrow, and he would have his pick of any open vacancy. Some clubs would sack their current managers to bring him in.
Just adding a bit of perspective; it's not like there is a significant cabal of important figures in football who doubt what he brings to the game.
Now with us armchair managers, it's a different story of course.
I would have to concur.
I think you can say this about Vilanova, who had basically the same team. It's less true for each successive manager and isn't even remotely true today. In general I'm not a fan of giving managers credit for things other managers did years later. It's almost never justifiable.
I also don't think it's credible to give Pep all this credit for the 08 team because "the team had declined and many star players had declined or left" but then also give him a bunch of credit for what the next managers did, because when those managers took over, the team had declined and many star players had declined or left too.
You're the one using Barcelona's post record as a stick to beat Guardiola with. But has his 4 years in Spain been bettered by any manager before or after at the club? Maybe Cruyff? Enrique had the treble season but what happened after?
There's very little evidence that Guardiola can't do these things.
We know he hasn't. The main reason why he hasn't done these things is because he hasn't had the opportunity to do them, and due to his success, he'll likely never have to.
But this is a bit like saying "George can't be the best student because he was never #1 student in the third grade" and it turns out George skipped third grade and went straight to fourth.
The answer to this question is in my earlier post, which you presumably didn't read. You seem to think I am "beating Guardiola." I am not; I think he's the best manager in the world.
That's your opinion not the "way it is". Pep will be among the all time greats but merely focusing on number of trophies isn't the best metric imo. SAF is considered the greatest of all time for a multitude of reasons - trophies, longevity, building and rebuilding successful teams, winning as an underdog and breaking dominance of other teams. You can paint it anyway you want but Pep hasn't proven a few things other managers have done. Which is fine, everybody has their strengths. But let's not pretend those things won't be held against him. His career isn't beyond reproach.
Rojo isn't on our books anymore. £150/200m is 'not that much?' It's not just that though, the perceived value of Peps squad is considerably higher.
It’s not though.
He could have avoided buying players like Ake, Stones (poor up until this season), Torres, Mendy etc etc.. but he needs a big squad and needs the security and comfort of having that advantage. He doesn’t use that many subs, but he certainly has the advantage of rotation and cover for injuries.
Ferguson often used youth players and went without those things. He used youth players to fill gaps rather than go out and buy someone. He would win big matches with players totally out of position to avoid buying someone they didn’t need
Pep has invited this pressure on himself by taking shortcuts and constantly buying new players. The only time he didn’t have by far the best squad in the league, we saw what happened.
Fergie was brave and was confident in his players abilities and believed in them to come up big when it mattered. That makes him a better coach for me.
George probably shouldn’t have skipped 3rd grade, because it means he has to cheat on the tests to keep doing so well in the 4th.
Last edited:
.
I’m sorry but I’m still confused as to what you’re arguing. I agree that the following managers deserve credit and had their own unique challenges, but I don’t understand what Enrique winning a title in 2015 has to do with the situation of the team Guardiola took over in 2008. You said the following managers having won the league shows that Barcelona going two seasons without a trophy and 20 points off the leaders was an aberration, but that doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m sorry but I’m still confused as to what you’re arguing. I agree that the following managers deserve credit and had their own unique challenges, but I don’t understand what Enrique winning a title in 2015 has to do with the situation of the team Guardiola took over in 2008. You said the following managers having won the league shows that Barcelona going two seasons without a trophy and 20 points off the leaders was an aberration, but that doesn’t make sense to me.
No chance he'd have got the Barca job had he not led Barca B to one of their best ever seasons...
I am sure someone said this before but the players he inherited were
Joe Hart - No one would touch him after that
Zabaleta, Sagna Clichy Fernando Yaya Kompany. See the clubs they went immediately after and how their career panned out. Yaya and Kompany went into retirement
Is the argument that "why cant he use past it players who were about to retire to dominate"?
Highly debatable, Zidane is 3 games away from having a good claim to that title, and he's even younger than Pep
Following your logic
Mourinho could not take Chelsea to a CL final, 2 rookies Avram Grant and RdM took them. One of them didn't even have a coaching license
We can infer that Grant and RdM were better or equal to 04-07 Mourinho.. Is that right
Not that much, when you consider the difference in trophies they've been collecting over the years. They'll secure a 3rd PL title in the last 4 years. That's not 150-200m difference. The perceived value is higher because they bought good players and improve most of them.
Last edited:
There's no such thing as best manager EVER. It simply doesn't exist and just gets people to argue, debate and belittle people achievement likewise the same with best player.
If we had say Haaland and Sancho lining up for us this season do you think we wouldn't be competing for the title or even Europe?
They did. When you consider the amount both managers have spent at their respective clubs, the squads they inherited, and how many players those managers were able to buy and discard when they didn't work, it puts it all in a very different light.
Yes, if we can get Haaland and Sancho, we'd be favorite for the League. I can see your point there.
He’s questioned not because he never went to a smaller club but because every manager or player, no matter how good, is questioned. Doesn’t mean that these doubts are necessarily logical or warranted.
Last edited:
I don't think we're close to pretty comfortably winning a league title and being in the CL finals, being the favourites to win that tournament either.
Of course. We were discussing about United and City's spending.
Apologies. I didn't read the thread. My bad.
no problemo, man. I think everyone agreed we're not that close to City. Although if we had Sancho and Haaland, as Ivaldo alluded, things might be different.
I don't think you can infer that. The reason why you can't infer it is because CL titles (and finals) are much less common, both for top clubs and top managers, than league titles are. Because of that, if you try to evaluate managers based on windows of such short length (3 years in this case), you are almost certainly going to reach erroneous conclusions.
We judge managers using a baseline. You are saying that the baseline for Pep's years in Barcelona should be "the two years at Barcelona before he became a manager." I am saying you should actually look at a longer period of time, both before and after he became manager, to understand what the real baseline of performance was.
I honestly don't think you would be, your squad still has too many holes, not saying they wouldn't win the league but I very much doubt they would be favourites in front of City and Liverpool
No, I don't like this analogy. I don't think if Pep took a pay cut he'd struggle to pay the mortgage to be honest. He could try his luck at Leicester without much change to his lifestyle methinks.
Now back to him having proven himself. He took over at Barca with, as I've illustrated already, was the greatest assembly of talent ever put together. Some people have suggested that these players wouldn't have been so great if it weren't for Pep and talk about Barca's position the year before.
I believe that Lionel Messi would have been as good as he was, if Paul Ince was managing him. Pep got rid of Ronaldinho who had gone from the lynchpin of the great 06 team to the biggest party boy in the city. It hardly took huge reserves of common sense to make that decision. So he started his managerial career on the top, with the best player of all time at his disposal and has never started a year since without having the best group of players.
I've been told I'm very stupid for suggesting this but can anybody tell me which year Pep didn't have the best squad in his respective league?
He could, but why would he, when, with all due respect to Leicester, there would be 5 clubs with better pedigree courting him?
The reason why Jose Mourinho went to Spurs is because that was the best slot available to him. No other elite club in Europe wanted him. Now that he is sacked, he is being linked with Celtic. That hasn't happened to Pep yet. Why would he voluntarily make that step down?
Why would he? How does that benefit him or his family in any way?
Okay.
His first season as a manager- at Barca B. He turned them into one of the best sides in the division and earned his first team job by doing so well there. Since then he's gone from strength to strength, something Ancelotti, Mourinho etc have all failed miserably at. There's a good reason he's the only manager ever to coach three top sides in ten years without ever getting sacked- because it's incredibly difficult. People think football is FIFA where having the best squad is 90% of the struggle. You say anyone could do it... well, why haven't they? Why's he the only one?
Ferguson wins simply because of the financial constraints placed upon him Vs the highest level European competitors during his era Vs His Achievements which stand on their own merits and Ferguson's records pre-United with Aberdeen.
It's not Guardiola's fault per se.
Would love to see Guardiola reach heights with say an AFC Wimbledon.
. I think he would do fine.I'm not saying he would or he should. He can do what he likes. He'll probably stay at PetroCity spending a fortune on the best players around and winning trophies. I'm not overly impressed, unlike some. Klopp has done far more impressive things in the game in my opinion.