'Pep' Guardiola sack watch

[Manchester Dan]

It always amazes me the lengths people will go to to try and prove X is better than Y. Hard to say who’s better really isn’t it? they’re both top tier on merit and there’s not many up there with them. Separating them is difficult because they have different strengths and people will value them differently based on what they want from their manager. What cannot be disputed is that they are both serial winners and ANY club in world football would love to have managers like them.

My stance has always been that if there’s money available then Pep has proven he’ll get top players playing top football as well as anybody, and if there’s not money then there may well be better options because we’ve never seen Pep have to do it - but to try and strongly argue he couldn’t is pure speculation. Sometimes circumstance doesn’t allow for every possible scenario to be tried and tested.

 

[Olecurls99]

You are just totally clueless.

When Man Utd won league title under Fergie the very first time, difference between the money we’ve spend on our squad, when compared to other elite clubs in England, isn’t as big as you’ve made out, it’s simply not the case when you keep implying we’ve spend huge in magnitude because we were by far biggest and richest club. Especially when compared to City squad today and considering the magnitude of difference in spending in related to other clubs, it’s nothing.

Man Utd (92-93)
1. Pallister - 2.3m
2. Parker - 2m
3. Hughes - 1.8m
4. Cantona - 1.2m
5. Ince - 1m

(Other players like Bruce, McClair cost around 800k, big Pete, Irwin, Kanchelski cost around 500-600k, Sharpe 200k, Giggs 0 etc. I didn’t count Robson becos he was in his retiring years and didn’t really feature much. We did spend another 1m on Dublin though, so that’s the biggest difference there)

Arsenal (92-93)
1. Ian Wright - 2.5m
2. Keown - 2m
3. Seaman - 1.5m
4. Linighan - 1.2m
5. Limpar - 1m

(The rest range from 300-750k, depends)

Leeds (92-93)
1. Rocastle - 2m
2. Wallace - 1.6m
3. Dorigo - 1.3m
4. Lukic - 1m
5. Hodge - 900k

(The rest around 500k plus minus, depends)

Liverpool (92-93)
1. Stewart - 2.3m
2. Weight - 2.2m
3. James - 1m
4. Barnes - 900k

(The rest under 500k)

I just don’t see the huge advantage we are having in terms of spending. The top signings are in similar range, and then mid range signings are more or less similar, we have spend a fair amount on those ~500k bargains, which is nothing huge. At most we are only talking about maybe around 1m - 1.5m difference in total spending, which is equivalent to 50-60m in today’s money, more or less I guess. It’s fair to say it’s nothing if compared to Pep’s City spending vs other clubs spending (around 300-500m difference)

Yeah good work but it shouldn't be necessary. Trying to say Fergie bought titles like City is ridiculous.

I saw a great chart that showed the adjusted for inflation spend of each club from 1992 to 2018. At no point were United at the top. It was Liverpool and then Blackburn by a distance and then back to Liverpool and then Chelsea came in and skewed it to pieces.

The notion that Fergie bought the league is slanderous.

 

[Olecurls99]

It always amazes me the lengths people will go to to try and prove X is better than Y. Hard to say who’s better really isn’t it? they’re both top tier on merit and there’s not many up there with them. Separating them is difficult because they have different strengths and people will value them differently based on what they want from their manager. What cannot be disputed is that they are both serial winners and ANY club in world football would love to have managers like them.

My stance has always been that if there’s money available then Pep has proven he’ll get top players playing top football as well as anybody, and if there’s not money then there may well be better options because we’ve never seen Pep have to do it - but to try and strongly argue he couldn’t is pure speculation. Sometimes circumstance doesn’t allow for every possible scenario to be tried and tested.

Other managers also got those players to win the same titles.

Vilanova, Enrique, the great Nico Kovac, Mancini, Pellegrini.

Nobody else led a club to 20 years of dominance.

X is better than Y I'm afraid. And that was quite short too.

 

[NasirTimothy]

You are just totally clueless.

When Man Utd won league title under Fergie the very first time, difference between the money we’ve spend on our squad, when compared to other elite clubs in England, isn’t as big as you’ve made out, it’s simply not the case when you keep implying we’ve spend huge in magnitude because we were by far biggest and richest club. Especially when compared to City squad today and considering the magnitude of difference in spending in related to other clubs, it’s nothing.

Man Utd (92-93)
1. Pallister - 2.3m
2. Parker - 2m
3. Hughes - 1.8m
4. Cantona - 1.2m
5. Ince - 1m

(Other players like Bruce, McClair cost around 800k, big Pete, Irwin, Kanchelski cost around 500-600k, Sharpe 200k, Giggs 0 etc. I didn’t count Robson becos he was in his retiring years and didn’t really feature much. We did spend another 1m on Dublin though, so that’s the biggest difference there)

Arsenal (92-93)
1. Ian Wright - 2.5m
2. Keown - 2m
3. Seaman - 1.5m
4. Linighan - 1.2m
5. Limpar - 1m

(The rest range from 300-750k, depends)

Leeds (92-93)
1. Rocastle - 2m
2. Wallace - 1.6m
3. Dorigo - 1.3m
4. Lukic - 1m
5. Hodge - 900k

(The rest around 500k plus minus, depends)

Liverpool (92-93)
1. Stewart - 2.3m
2. Weight - 2.2m
3. James - 1m
4. Barnes - 900k

(The rest under 500k)

I just don’t see the huge advantage we are having in terms of spending. The top signings are in similar range, and then mid range signings are more or less similar, we have spend a fair amount on those ~500k bargains, which is nothing huge. At most we are only talking about maybe around 1m - 1.5m difference in total spending, which is equivalent to 50-60m in today’s money, more or less I guess. It’s fair to say it’s nothing if compared to Pep’s City spending vs other clubs spending (around 300-500m difference)

I’m far from clueless. You however, need to get some sleep. It’s clear that worshipping Cristiano Ronaldo has turned you into an edgy, ranting insomniac. I hope to goodness that you don’t live in Europe, cos writing this nonsense in the middle of the night is not healthy.

You did the first year. Now address what I said about Fergie spending half a billion and breaking the British transfer record seven times. How many times has Pep broken the British transfer record?

The point is not that modern City are richer relatively than Fergie’s United (I assume that they are, even adjusting for inflation: oil money is a tremendous and dodgy resource). The point is that Fergie also had the ability to spend a lot of money, because Manchester United are and always have been a huge club. That doesn’t make what he achieved any less impressive but it is a fact.

People here are just gonna have to accept that Pep will keep winning trophies and he will therefore be compared to Ferguson, especially if he gets ahead of Fergie’s total tally (possible, because he’s still quite young). For the record, I think Chelsea will win the Champions League (and I’ve thought that for a long time), so that should give the haters some joy if it happens.

 

[NasirTimothy]

That’s why you are being so wrong and has been ridiculed in this thread. Transfers like Keane, Cole, RVN, Veron, Ferdinand, Berbatov etc are mostly bought from money generated by huge success under Fergie’s team, not the other way round. You just don’t use this compare with Pep spending which are all generated from oil money, it’s stupid comparison.

Ah, I see you did attempt to address it in another of you poorly thought out posts. No one of note has ‘ridiculed’ me in this thread, it’s been a bunch of emotional people spouting nonsense that proves they are damaged and hurt individuals, like yourself. You do realise that Pep hasn’t spent his whole managerial career at City right? What financial advantage did he have over Madrid at Barca?

 

[fergies coat]

I’m far from clueless. You however, need to get some sleep. It’s clear that worshipping Cristiano Ronaldo has turned you into an edgy, ranting insomniac. I hope to goodness that you don’t live in Europe, cos writing this nonsense in the middle of the night is not healthy.

You did the first year. Now address what I said about Fergie spending half a billion and breaking the British transfer record seven times. How many times has Pep broken the British transfer record?

The point is not that modern City are richer relatively than Fergie’s United (I assume that they are, even adjusting for inflation: oil money is a tremendous and dodgy resource). The point is that Fergie also had the ability to spend a lot of money, because Manchester United are and always have been a huge club. That doesn’t make what he achieved any less impressive but it is a fact.

People here are just gonna have to accept that Pep will keep winning trophies and he will therefore be compared to Ferguson, especially if he gets ahead of Fergie’s total tally (possible, because he’s still quite young). For the record, I think Chelsea will win the Champions League (and I’ve thought that for a long time), so that should give the haters some joy if it happens.

He had the ability to spend money because of the success he achieved without it, and even then we were nowhere near city's financial resources. You obviously don't get it and never will obviously.

 

[NasirTimothy]

It always amazes me the lengths people will go to to try and prove X is better than Y. Hard to say who’s better really isn’t it? they’re both top tier on merit and there’s not many up there with them. Separating them is difficult because they have different strengths and people will value them differently based on what they want from their manager. What cannot be disputed is that they are both serial winners and ANY club in world football would love to have managers like them.

My stance has always been that if there’s money available then Pep has proven he’ll get top players playing top football as well as anybody, and if there’s not money then there may well be better options because we’ve never seen Pep have to do it - but to try and strongly argue he couldn’t is pure speculation. Sometimes circumstance doesn’t allow for every possible scenario to be tried and tested.

Nothing in this post can be argued with by anyone remotely sensible. I can see that there are plenty of non-sensible people about, however.

 

[NasirTimothy]

He had the ability to spend money because of the success he achieved without it, and even then we were nowhere near city's financial resources. You obviously don't get it and never will obviously.

So let me get this straight. He had no money to spend at the start?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Ah, I see you did attempt to address it in another of you poorly thought out posts. No one of note has ‘ridiculed’ me in this thread, it’s been a bunch of emotional people spouting nonsense that proves they are damaged and hurt individuals, like yourself. You do realise that Pep hasn’t spent his whole managerial career at City right? What financial advantage did he have over Madrid at Barca?

He undoubtedly did great at Barcelona but he only had the greatest footballer to have played the game and two of the greatest central midfielders to have played the game in his squad. So he had a better squad than RM. More natural talent and a genius. But Pep did a fine job at Barcelona but you've repeatedly missed the point in that he hasn't really built success from the ground up like SAF did. Or Klopp and Someone have done. No amount of pretending and running around circles and putting forth rubbish arguments Clough to SAF that was something, will change that.

And at City as that poster has repeatedly proven to you despite your inability grasp, Pep has bought success which SAF did not do. The matter built it and then spent on top of it to maintain it. At City others has already built.

At Bayern he basically has free and pointless titles so there's that comfort too.

At the end of the day it's not that Pep isn't a great manager. It's that he has devotees like you who can't see where his career lacks in comparison to other managers. Almost as if it's painfully personal to admit. It's fine, fanboys are like that.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

So let me get this straight. He had no money to spend at the start?

A child's argument gets even more infantile.

 

[fergies coat]

So let me get this straight. He had no money to spend at the start?

Of course he did, but it was much more of a level playing field between everyone else. He rebuilt the club from top to bottom. He did the same at Aberdeen. Pep hasn't do this.

 

[fergies coat]

He undoubtedly did great at Barcelona but he only had the greatest footballer to have played the game and two of the greatest central midfielders to have played the game in his squad. So he had a better squad than RM. More natural talent and a genius. But Pep did a fine job at Barcelona but you've repeatedly missed the point in that he hasn't really built success from the ground up like SAF did. Or Klopp and Someone have done. No amount of pretending and running around circles and putting forth rubbish arguments Clough to SAF that was something, will change that.

And at City as that poster has repeatedly proven to you despite your inability grasp, Pep has bought success which SAF did not do. The matter built it and then spent on top of it to maintain it. At City others has already built.

At Bayern he basically has free and pointless titles so there's that comfort too.

At the end of the day it's not that Pep isn't a great manager. It's that he has devotees like you who can't see where his career lacks in comparison to other managers. Almost as if it's painfully personal to admit. It's fine, fanboys are like that.

Brilliant post. It really isn't difficult to get your head around it.

 

[Olecurls99]

I very much doubt that is true. Fergie spent well over half a billion in his 25 years at United and broke the British transfer record no less than seven times (Pallister, Keane, Cole, RVN, Veron, Ferdinand and Berbatov).

in his last few years though, he did tighten the purse strings and had success with some pretty underwhelming squads.

And the truth shall set you free. I got this from a Liverpool fan website.

Liverpool spend 1990-2012 655.7 million pounds
United spend 1990-2012 584.1 million pounds

Please refrain from comparing City's outspending success with Fergie knocking Liverpool off their perch whilst Liverpool spent more money on players.
It is incomparable.

Over that period despite Liverpool being at the top in 1990 and spending more money in the next 22 years, Fergie won 12 titles. I'll accept your apology whenever suits.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

And the truth shall set you free. I got this from a Liverpool fan website.

Liverpool spend 1990-2012 655.7 million pounds
United spend 1990-2012 584.1 million pounds

Please refrain from comparing City's outspending success with Fergie knocking Liverpool off their perch whilst Liverpool spent more money on players.
It is incomparable.

Over that period despite Liverpool being at the top in 1990 and spending more money in the next 22 years, Fergie won 12 titles. I'll accept your apology whenever suits.

Also how much spending was involved when Sir Alex turned seeming arsenal and Chelsea dominance into 5 titles in 7 years? I remember we spent on Hargreaves, Berbatov ( didn't even need him to be successful), Nani etc and a few others but it wasn't mental spending and a lot of it came from internal improvement (Rooney Ronaldo) and even that wasn't the same as City now. It's just convenience to lump every success into the same bucket.


Oh Sir Alex signed players
Oh Klopp signed VVD

You have to be able to see the difference between Klopp's one title at Liverpool and Peps 3 at Bayern. Context. Brain. Use it.

 

[NasirTimothy]

And the truth shall set you free. I got this from a Liverpool fan website.

Liverpool spend 1990-2012 655.7 million pounds
United spend 1990-2012 584.1 million pounds

Please refrain from comparing City's outspending success with Fergie knocking Liverpool off their perch whilst Liverpool spent more money on players.
It is incomparable.

Over that period despite Liverpool being at the top in 1990 and spending more money in the next 22 years, Fergie won 12 titles. I'll accept your apology whenever suits.

Post the link. Or any other evidence you have

 

[NasirTimothy]

Also how much spending was involved when Sir Alex turned seeming arsenal and Chelsea dominance into 5 titles in 7 years? I remember we spent on Hargreaves, Berbatov ( didn't even need him to be successful), Nani etc and a few others but it wasn't mental spending and a lot of it came from internal improvement (Rooney Ronaldo) and even that wasn't the same as City now. It's just convenience to lump every success into the same bucket.


Oh Sir Alex signed players
Oh Klopp signed VVD

You have to be able to see the difference between Klopp's one title at Liverpool and Peps 3 at Bayern. Context. Brain. Use it.

What about Pep’s 14 trophies at Barca? We just ignoring those now? What financial advantage did he have over Madrid or the rest of Europe?

Context. Brain. Use it

 

[Gentleman Jim]

Some people get easier starts than others. Be it in football or life in general. We all know this. Pep has made the most of it no doubt but I don't think its outrageous to say it's better to begin with with Barcelona and that group of players as opposed to East Stirlingshire.

To get that group of players in your first job is pretty unique. I think most new managers would love that opportunity.

Most new managers would love that opportunity but the job would have eaten the vast majority of them alive. Hostile Press, egotistical superstar players, angry ultras groups and a divided Board are just some of the sh*tstorms faced from Day One.
There‘s not half the pressure at Chelsea that there is as Barcelona but look what that job did to Lampard and there are many other examples of hero players who took a big job at a star studded team and lasted barely 5 minutes.

Just to repeat, Ferguson and Guardiola both had tough starts to their Managerial careers and passed with flying colours .

 

[NasirTimothy]

A child's argument gets even more infantile.

No need to put yourself down like this, sometimes you make OK points, in amongst all the dross

 

[NasirTimothy]

Most new managers would love that opportunity but the job would have eaten the vast majority of them alive. Hostile Press, egotistical superstar players, angry ultras groups and a divided Board are just some of the sh*tstorms faced from Day One.
There‘s not half the pressure at Chelsea that there is as Barcelona but look what that job did to Lampard and there are many other examples of hero players who took a big job at a star studded team and lasted barely 5 minutes.

Just to repeat, Ferguson and Guardiola both had tough starts to their Managerial careers and passed with flying colours .

Different challenges indeed. The pressure to succeed at a big club is immense. The pressure when you are a provincial club with no money is also considerable, but it’s a different type of challenge.

 

[Olecurls99]

Different challenges indeed. The pressure to succeed at a big club is immense. The pressure when you are a provincial club with no money is also considerable, but it’s a different type of challenge.

Yeah, Vilanova did it. Luis Enrique did it. Valverde did it.
Immense pressure alright.

Still helps having the best players though.

I'm not posting the we spent less than Liverpool link. I can't be arsed learning how to do it. You'll just have to take me at my word.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

People do go to great lengths on here to discredit Pep.

We're probably not winning a Prem title until he gets bored and leaves City.

 

[Gentleman Jim]

Of course he did, but it was much more of a level playing field between everyone else. He rebuilt the club from top to bottom. He did the same at Aberdeen. Pep hasn't do this.

Would you want him to do Txiki, Soriano and Khaldoons job just to prove he can? Would that be before or after he wins League 2 with Yeovil just to prove he can to guys on a forum with Degrees in Whataboutism?
If you want evidence that Pep does change a club from top to bottom look on the pitch.
First Team, u23 Team, u18 Team all play almost exactly the same style and are serial winners since his arrival.

Ferguson still has the greater body of work at the moment, neverthelessm in my opinion but it’s not cast in stone.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Yeah, Vilanova did it. Luis Enrique did it. Valverde did it.
Immense pressure alright.

Still helps having the best players though.

I'm not posting the we spent less than Liverpool link. I can't be arsed learning how to do it. You'll just have to take me at my word.

Convenient

 

[NasirTimothy]

Would you want him to do Txiki, Soriano and Khaldoons job just to prove he can? Would that be before or after he wins League 2 with Yeovil just to prove he can to guys on a forum with Degrees in Whataboutism?
If you want evidence that Pep does change a club from top to bottom look on the pitch.
First Team, u23 Team, u18 Team all play almost exactly the same style and are serial winners since his arrival.

Ferguson still has the greater body of work at the moment, neverthelessm in my opinion but it’s not cast in stone.

Absolutely undeniable at this stage. Pep needs to continue in this vein for another 10 or so years. Whether he will remains to be seen. He might not even stay much longer at City. He might try international management at some point, something Fergie did only very briefly. We don’t know yet.

 

[footballistic orgasm]

Trying to argue that Pep is better than Fergie on a United forum makes no sense.

My personal opinion on the issue is that Pep is a superior coach/tactician who's had a bigger impact in how the game is being played, and Fergie the better manager.

 

[NasirTimothy]

He undoubtedly did great at Barcelona but he only had the greatest footballer to have played the game and two of the greatest central midfielders to have played the game in his squad. So he had a better squad than RM. More natural talent and a genius. But Pep did a fine job at Barcelona but you've repeatedly missed the point in that he hasn't really built success from the ground up like SAF did. Or Klopp and Someone have done. No amount of pretending and running around circles and putting forth rubbish arguments Clough to SAF that was something, will change that.

And at City as that poster has repeatedly proven to you despite your inability grasp, Pep has bought success which SAF did not do. The matter built it and then spent on top of it to maintain it. At City others has already built.

At Bayern he basically has free and pointless titles so there's that comfort too.

At the end of the day it's not that Pep isn't a great manager. It's that he has devotees like you who can't see where his career lacks in comparison to other managers. Almost as if it's painfully personal to admit. It's fine, fanboys are like that.

The fact that you think this is a rubbish argument/comparison shows that you don’t know anything about football. Or you’re 12 years old. One of the two.

I do actually get that Pep has only managed at big clubs with a lot of resources and hasn’t worked at places like St Mirren and Aberdeen (which are actually better arguments in favour of Fergie working under constraints than this ridiculous notion that he was working on a shoestring at tiny little Man United).

However, I don’t think that these are reasons to discredit Pep, because as another poster intelligently pointed out, you play the cards you’re dealt. If he ends up with the most managerial trophies then that’s what he’ll have, no ifs and buts. Plus his style of football means I’m going to be much more inclined to give him credit than I would with someone like Jose, for example.

Stop with the ‘fanboy’ nonsense by the way, you sound pathetic.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Other managers also got those players to win the same titles.

Vilanova, Enrique, the great Nico Kovac, Mancini, Pellegrini.

Nobody else led a club to 20 years of dominance.

X is better than Y I'm afraid. And that was quite short too.

A perfect example to support my post - you can always twist a narrative to suit the argument and
People go to great lengths to do it. Mancini & Pellegrini we’re miles away from achieving what Pep has at City. Back to back titles, domestic treble, 100 points. Hopefully in a month we can add a Champions League to the list.

 

[do.ob]

Absolutely undeniable at this stage. Pep needs to continue in this vein for another 10 or so years. Whether he will remains to be seen. He might not even stay much longer at City. He might try international management at some point, something Fergie did only very briefly. We don’t know yet.

I think that entirely depends on how you approach the question. If you're only looking at longevity, then sure. But for example by beating Chelsea Pep could already pull ahead on CL wins, as far as dominance/peak performance goes he has already dwarfed SAF's best tally twice with City alone. On the tactical front, the influence he has on upcoming coaches, Guardiola is also miles ahead.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

The fact that you think this is a rubbish argument/comparison shows that you don’t know anything about football. Or you’re 12 years old. One of the two.
.

No, it just shows that I have the intellectual acumen to acknowledge that Sir Alex Ferguson was the more successful, prolific, era defining, and simply put better football manager of this era than Brian Clough, as good as he was, was during his

That you managed to trawl your way through Wikipedia and still manage to make your argument look woefully is nothing but pure agenda. But expected, given the facts also laugh at you. Or of course, sheer stupidly. You choose, don't know which one is worse.

Next up, let's do Mourinho Vs SAf. I'm sure you think Jose has as strong a case too. Miserable City poster who is wasting everybody's time with his Pep adulation

 

[amolbhatia50k]

No need to put yourself down like this, sometimes you make OK points, in amongst all the dross

Don't worry that was me putting you down fella. You've earned it.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Yeah, Vilanova did it. Luis Enrique did it. Valverde did it.
Immense pressure alright.

Pep did better than all of those managers, both in performances and in titles won.
It is true that simply saying "he's won more titles than X or Y" is misleading because the amount of titles you win depends on who you manage. But there is clearly a difference between his performance as a manager and that of the people who come before and after him.

 

[RedDevilzFox]

Pep will go down as the best manager of all time if he manages into his late 60s. Fergie is humble enough to probably admit it himself. Doesn't matter what the statisticians of RedCafe have to say.

 

[united_99]

I think that entirely depends on how you approach the question. If you're only looking at longevity, then sure. But for example by beating Chelsea Pep could already pull ahead on CL wins, as far as dominance/peak performance goes he has already dwarfed SAF's best tally twice with City alone. On the tactical front, the influence he has on upcoming coaches, Guardiola is also miles ahead.

Points total is one way of looking at it. Jose in 2005 also achieved more points than SAF ever did. But what is actually dominance/peak? Season by season only? Or being the best team in the league for 2-3 seasons in a row? Because SAF for example has won 3 league titles in a row twice (1999-2001 and 2007-2009), something neither Jose nor Pep have achieved. There are more ways of looking at peaks/dominance.

 

[NasirTimothy]

No, it just shows that I have the intellectual acumen to acknowledge that Sir Alex Ferguson was the more successful, prolific, era defining, and simply put better football manager of this era than Brian Clough, as good as he was, was during his

That you managed to trawl your way through Wikipedia and still manage to make your argument look woefully is nothing but pure agenda. But expected, given the facts also laugh at you. Or of course, sheer stupidly. You choose, don't know which one is worse.

Next up, let's do Mourinho Vs SAf. I'm sure you think Jose has as strong a case too. Miserable City poster who is wasting everybody's time with his Pep adulation

You’re so dumb it defies belief. I’m not a City fan. Nor did I ‘trawl my way through Wikipedia’, because unlike you, I actually have knowledge of this game and the history of it.

I’m done with your idiocy and your inability to debate levelly. Go and argue with your ancestors, who are doubtless ashamed that they spawned a fool

 

[do.ob]

Points total is one way of looking at it. Jose in 2005 also achieved more points than SAF ever did. But what is actually dominance/peak? Season by season only? Or being the best team in the league for 2-3 seasons in a row? Because SAF for example has won 3 league titles in a row twice (1999-2001 and 2007-2009), something neither Jose nor Pep have achieved. There are more ways of looking at peaks/dominance.

Well yes, it depends on how you define your criteria, which was kind of my point.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Why not being meaningful? Building a team starting from scratch and limited resources, to multiple teams achieving domination across different eras, and singlehandedly elevating the club to one of greatest club in past 30 years with long lasting influence. This requires all of the “qualities” above, which Fergie is better at. IMO this is by far the hardest things to achieve in football world.

Yeah the problem is your argument is semi-circular. You are not independently coming up with traits that define a 'best manager' and finding the one who has them, and saying "oh wow it's Alex Ferguson." You have decided Ferguson is the best manager, and are evaluating managers based on whether they've done the most Alex Ferguson things, which obviously they're all going to fail at since I would hope/assume Alex Ferguson is the manager most similar to Alex Ferguson.

Things like 'working with a budget' or 'building teams' are fine, they are relatively independent. "Better at being successful at one club for long-term" isn't, this is just a thing Alex Ferguson did. Same with 'being more flexible in football approach', or 'more proven at achieving things with underdogs', or 'being more flexible with football approach.' You might as well say Alex Ferguson was better than Pep at having a name that begins with A.

Because SAF for example has won 3 league titles in a row twice (1999-2001 and 2007-2009), something neither Jose nor Pep have achieved. There are more ways of looking at peaks/dominance.

Pep has won three league titles in a row twice. Unless by league title you mean "english league title", in which case someone could argue "Ferguson has merely won 3 titles in a row in one league."

 

[NasirTimothy]

I think that entirely depends on how you approach the question. If you're only looking at longevity, then sure. But for example by beating Chelsea Pep could already pull ahead on CL wins, as far as dominance/peak performance goes he has already dwarfed SAF's best tally twice with City alone. On the tactical front, the influence he has on upcoming coaches, Guardiola is also miles ahead.

Well I think all of this is debatable, but I think longevity does matter a lot. I go back to the debates that were had on here re Pep v Zidane. Zidane has more CLs but Pep has managed at the top and been successful for longer, so I’d still give the edge to him. Same thing with Pep and SAF, even if Pep goes ahead of SAF in CL wins.

 

[NasirTimothy]

Yeah the problem is your argument is semi-circular. You are not independently coming up with traits that define a 'best manager' and finding the one who has them, and saying "oh wow it's Alex Ferguson." You have decided Ferguson is the best manager, and are evaluating managers based on whether they've done the most Alex Ferguson things, which obviously they're all going to fail at since I would hope/assume Alex Ferguson is the manager most similar to Alex Ferguson.

Things like 'working with a budget' or 'building teams' are fine, they are relatively independent. "Better at being successful at one club for long-term" isn't, this is just a thing Alex Ferguson did. Same with 'being more flexible in football approach', or 'more proven at achieving things with underdogs', or 'being more flexible with football approach.' You might as well say Alex Ferguson was better than Pep at having a name that begins with A.

Fair points

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You’re so dumb it defies belief. I’m not a City fan. Nor did I ‘trawl my way through Wikipedia’, because unlike you, I actually have knowledge of this game and the history of it.

I’m done with your idiocy and your inability to debate levelly. Go and argue with your ancestors, who are doubtless ashamed that they spawned a fool

Well you're a fan of sheer stupidity then given you indulge it in every third sentence. Not to mention being unable to admit a better manager is a better manager due to sheer utter incompetence and ineptitude. Bugger off. Disinterested in wank piles of posting piss like yours.

Clown put on ignore.

 

[RedDevilzFox]

People suggesting Fergie worked with a "budget" are laughable. Guy broke British transfer records for fun and had his pick of the top talent from the english league.