Where does Ancelotti rank among all time great managers?

[heraklion]

You sound really salty and appear to not understand the context of a club like Aberdeen compared to Milan, Madrid, Barcelona etc.

I don't think this is the case.

It's rather you who doesn't seem to understand much what it takes to lead a top team on Day 1 at the beginning of your career and staying at the top. You kind of sound like this is a weakness from your posts when in reality it reflects how much valued these managers are from Day 1. None has time to waste at low level clubs as they get enough attention from creme de la creme from Day 1.

I'd prefer managers who start at the top and remain there over those who receive zero attention from such clubs for decades.

 

[SilentWitness]

I don't think this is the case.

It's rather you who doesn't seem to understand much what it takes to lead a top team on Day 1 at the beginning of your career and staying at the top. You kind of sound like this is a weakness from your posts when in reality it reflects how much valued these managers are from Day 1. None has time to waste at low level clubs as they get enough attention from creme de la creme from Day 1.

I'd prefer managers who start at the top and remain there over those who receive zero attention from such clubs for decades.

What a load of tripe.

 

[roonster09]

How much does the Leicester title count towards the greatness of Ranieri as the GOAT? I know the answer Aberdeen

Ffs how dumb are these posts now.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Some men are born with an aura™

 

[Taribo's Gap]

Some men are born with an aura™

I like Carlo, but sometimes it feels like he is forcing the whole "coolest guy in the room" persona. Like, my man, your team just scored a goal to seal the CL, do you want everyone to stay on the bench and politely church clap?

 

[Boycott]

I rate him higher than Pep now in this era.

Obviously Pep cleans up in terms of league titles more than anyone but Ancelotti has been making amends for that in his second stint while also pulling away with CLs.

I think Pep's regimented and extraordinary single-mindedness towards detail means his teams will win pretty much every game they are expected to win without trouble which is why they win so many league titles posting 90+ points. Those regulation league matches on a Saturday against a middle of the road opponent that no one really stakes much into during the middle of November are games his teams rarely slip up in, but maybe Ancelotti's teams in the past would fall to complacency and drop points which come May is pivotal to the title outcome.

This season though Ancelotti's team lost 1 game in the league all season. All the while going all the way in the Champions League and it was a hard run. You can get on the favourable side of the draw like Inter did last season and get to a final but Real beat City and Bayern, arguably the two favourites going into this season, and a Dortmund side who dumped PSG out so were confident. This is a highly impressive Champions League victory to go with a complete dominance in La Liga.

Furthermore the idea he is just a great man manager and not a tactician does him a great disservice in my view. His Chelsea team which won the league ahead of us by a single point was the best title winning Chelsea team to watch if you ask me. If I recall right they were the first PL team to cross 100 goals scored in a season and the first top flight team in England including pre-PL years to do it in half a century. While simultaneously being rock solid at the back and winning the FA Cup too. It's one of the most underrated title winning teams which even Chelsea fans seem to not blow the trumpet for. If Pep came to England and in his very first season did that imagine the reaction. Instead he came a distant third and while they scored a lot of goals City also took a few batterings and won nothing.

He doesn't have to act hysterical or put on a show of passion to win and I think that doesn't play up to the social media era of hyper analysis of every move but you can argue Ancelotti despite all he has done is only now entering his best years.

 

[youngrell]

I don't think this is the case.

It's rather you who doesn't seem to understand much what it takes to lead a top team on Day 1 at the beginning of your career and staying at the top. You kind of sound like this is a weakness from your posts when in reality it reflects how much valued these managers are from Day 1. None has time to waste at low level clubs as they get enough attention from creme de la creme from Day 1.

I'd prefer managers who start at the top and remain there over those who receive zero attention from such clubs for decades.

In what world is getting in at the top and staying there harder and/or more impressive than working your way to the top and staying there?

Your posts in this thread are some of the worst I've read on this forum and that really is saying something.

 

[Theonas]

I rate him higher than Pep now in this era.

Obviously Pep cleans up in terms of league titles more than anyone but Ancelotti has been making amends for that in his second stint while also pulling away with CLs.

I think Pep's regimented and extraordinary single-mindedness towards detail means his teams will win pretty much every game they are expected to win without trouble which is why they win so many league titles posting 90+ points. Those regulation league matches on a Saturday against a middle of the road opponent that no one really stakes much into during the middle of November are games his teams rarely slip up in, but maybe Ancelotti's teams in the past would fall to complacency and drop points which come May is pivotal to the title outcome.

This season though Ancelotti's team lost 1 game in the league all season. All the while going all the way in the Champions League and it was a hard run. You can get on the favourable side of the draw like Inter did last season and get to a final but Real beat City and Bayern, arguably the two favourites going into this season, and a Dortmund side who dumped PSG out so were confident. This is a highly impressive Champions League victory to go with a complete dominance in La Liga.

I definitely agree that Ancelotti's work this season has been one of the best managerial performances in recent memory. I'd rank it easily his personal best which is of course saying something for someone of his pedigree. But maybe, precisely because what he did this year stands out so much that he still falls short that tiny bit. If he has a run similar or close to what he's been doing the past 3 years, a run that is consistent both domestically and in Europe, he would be in a much better position than he did pre this Real stint when his teams mostly lacked the authority and dominance of the very best.

Furthermore the idea he is just a great man manager and not a tactician does him a great disservice in my view. His Chelsea team which won the league ahead of us by a single point was the best title winning Chelsea team to watch if you ask me. If I recall right they were the first PL team to cross 100 goals scored in a season and the first top flight team in England including pre-PL years to do it in half a century. While simultaneously being rock solid at the back and winning the FA Cup too. It's one of the most underrated title winning teams which even Chelsea fans seem to not blow the trumpet for. If Pep came to England and in his very first season did that imagine the reaction. Instead he came a distant third and while they scored a lot of goals City also took a few batterings and won nothing.

He doesn't have to act hysterical or put on a show of passion to win and I think that doesn't play up to the social media era of hyper analysis of every move but you can argue Ancelotti despite all he has done is only now entering his best years.

I don't think you need to be a great tactician to produce an exciting team, especially in the PL. Sir Alex and Wenger were not obsessive tacticians either and some of their teams were very high exciting too. I think the term tactician is sometimes used to mean different things. Traditionally, a tactician is referred to someone who can read a game well and devise the best plan to nullify opponents and capitalize on their weaknesses. Mourinho, Rafa Benitez and most Italian managers fit that category. In the past decade or so, the term has become associated with ideologists, managers whose teams play with a clear vision and petterns of positions and pressing. This wasn't born with Pep of course but it has become the trend, meaning any manager whose team doesn't play with a defined pattern is considered not "a tactician". Ancelotti is definitely not one by this latter definition, but he most definitely is if we consider the former.

 

[LA BOMBA]

I don't see how anyone could rank Ancelotti above Pep. There is literally no argument for it.

The one thing that people use to counter Pep's success is stating that he only ever managed elite clubs with huge resources where he inherited extremely talented players.

Well you can't really use this argument in the case of comparing Ancelotti to Pep because Ancelotti has also only achieved success at elite clubs with huge resources where he already started with an extremely talented core of players. Ancelotti's legacy is entirely based on his stints at Milan and Real Madrid at the time when these two clubs were on the top of their game.

Ancelotti only spend few years of his coaching career in non-elite teams and didn't achieve anything of note there. While he didn't fail there and I don't hold it against him, he didn't do anything in smaller clubs to add to his legacy compared to Pep.

I understand that there is at least an argument to be made when comparing Pep to SAF or even to Klopp and Mourinho, as those managers also achieved success at relatively smaller clubs than the ones Pep managed, so they have something in their legacy that Pep doesn't have.

But Ancelotti literally doesn't have anything over Pep.

Even if you bring up the fact that Ancelotti has won more Champions League titles (5 vs 3), this is simply due to the fact that he managed for longer. Ancelotti has managed for 29 years, Guardiola for 17. Ancelotti has one CL title for every 5.8 years of his managerial career while Pep has won a CL title every 5.6 years. Pound-for-pound, Ancelotti and Pep therefore have similar CL success. Once Pep will have managed for 29 years, there's no way he doesn't have at least 5 CL trophies, unless he goes for international management.

Also when you compare the quality of those CL wins, Pep's teams were far more dominant. Every time Pep won the CL he also won the league, and he has two trebles. Meanwhile Ancelotti failed to win the league more often than not during his CL winning years. In fact he achieved most of his CL wins after he was already out of the title race for weeks, allowing him to rest players.

Where the comparison gets really silly is where you compare domestic league results as Pep absolutely blows Ancelotti out of the water when it comes to this. Ancelotti only won the Serie A one time in his 10 years in Italy. He won 2 La Liga titles in 5 years in Spain. His Premier League title with Chelsea was quality and I give him that, but it was also against a Man Utd that had just lost Cristiano Ronaldo and had already won it three times in a row. A year later United won the league again comfortably and Ancelotti was sacked. While Ancelotti indeed won a league title in every one of the big leagues in Europe, I don't see how winning Ligue 1 with PSG and Bundesliga with Bayern add anything to his legacy that would rival Pep.

Pep has already won twice as many league titles as Ancelotti (12 vs 6). And the way Pep won them was in a totally dominant way, breaking records, competing against some of the best teams in recent history. Ancelotti only won Serie A, Premier League and La Liga when Juve, Man Utd and Barcelona had an off-year, and those clubs resumed their dominance straight afterwards. Well we don't know what will happen next year but if Ancelotti wins the league again with Real, that will literally be the only time he would win back-to-back league titles in his career.

So when you compare the highs of both managers and the trophy haul, Pep is clearly superior to Ancelotti.

And when you compare the lows of both managers, Ancelotti has had much more humiliating failures, it doesn't even compare. I mean Pep basically didn't have any notable failures other than losing some CL knockouts and not winning a league once in a while. Pep's worst seasons are the kind of seasons other elite managers get praised for.

Meanwhile Ancelotti bottled the league with Juventus twice in a row in 2000 and 2001, losing to Roman clubs Lazio and Roma who have no league-winning DNA whatsoever, while he coached the strong Juve team with Zidane. His league form with Milan was lackluster and the club sacrificed league runs for CL. But then he also had some bottle jobs in CL like being crushed 4-0 by Deportivo in 2004 after winning the first round 4-1, and the famous Istanbul final in 2005.

With PSG Ancelotti managed to bottle Ligue 1 to Montpellier in 2012, after taking over at PSG in the winter when it was first in the league and further strengthening the team with elite players Maxwell, Alex and Motta. Such thing does not happen to Guardiola in a million years. There is no possible scenario whatsoever in which Guardiola takes over a PSG team when it's leading the league, adds 3 more elite players and then loses the league to Montepellier of all clubs. This is why such comparions are totally ridiculous. Pep basically doesn't fail, ever. He only has failures if the criteria for failure is literally "not winning everything you can win, every season".

That's just comparing the results of both managers. Then you add the fact that Guardiola revolutionized the game, has had a bigger impact on the way football is played than any manager in the last 20 years, and has been consistently regarded as the best manager around by majority of football years for a decade now.

 

[brunoag4]

In what world is getting in at the top and staying there harder and/or more impressive than working your way to the top and staying there?

Your posts in this thread are some of the worst I've read on this forum and that really is saying something.

He has a point though.

All managers and players' ultimate dream is to manage/play for the top clubs. It's very impressive to achieve that at the start of your career and succeed rather than having to wait for many years to do that. A player like Messi would not spend 10 years at a low level club to receive top offers just like Guardiola.

 

[erikcred]

I don't see how anyone could rank Ancelotti above Pep. There is literally no argument for it.

The one thing that people use to counter Pep's success is stating that he only ever managed elite clubs with huge resources where he inherited extremely talented players.

Well you can't really use this argument in the case of comparing Ancelotti to Pep because Ancelotti has also only achieved success at elite clubs with huge resources where he already started with an extremely talented core of players. Ancelotti's legacy is entirely based on his stints at Milan and Real Madrid at the time when these two clubs were on the top of their game.

Ancelotti only spend few years of his coaching career in non-elite teams and didn't achieve anything of note there. While he didn't fail there and I don't hold it against him, he didn't do anything in smaller clubs to add to his legacy compared to Pep.

I understand that there is at least an argument to be made when comparing Pep to SAF or even to Klopp and Mourinho, as those managers also achieved success at relatively smaller clubs than the ones Pep managed, so they have something in their legacy that Pep doesn't have.

But Ancelotti literally doesn't have anything over Pep.

Even if you bring up the fact that Ancelotti has won more Champions League titles (5 vs 3), this is simply due to the fact that he managed for longer. Ancelotti has managed for 29 years, Guardiola for 17. Ancelotti has one CL title for every 5.8 years of his managerial career while Pep has won a CL title every 5.6 years. Pound-for-pound, Ancelotti and Pep therefore have similar CL success. Once Pep will have managed for 29 years, there's no way he doesn't have at least 5 CL trophies, unless he goes for international management.

Also when you compare the quality of those CL wins, Pep's teams were far more dominant. Every time Pep won the CL he also won the league, and he has two trebles. Meanwhile Ancelotti failed to win the league more often than not during his CL winning years. In fact he achieved most of his CL wins after he was already out of the title race for weeks, allowing him to rest players.

And this is where the comparison gets really silly because Pep absolutely blows Ancelotti out of the water when it comes to league success. Ancelotti only won the Serie A one time in his 10 years in Italy. He won 2 La Liga titles in 5 years in Spain. His Premier League title with Chelsea was quality and I give him that, but it was also against a Man Utd that had just lost Cristiano Ronaldo and had already won it three times in a row. A year later United won the league again comfortably and Ancelotti was sacked. While Ancelotti indeed won a league title in every one of the big leagues in Europe, I don't see how winning Ligue 1 with PSG and Bundesliga with Bayern add anything to his legacy that would rival Pep.

Pep has already won twice as many league titles as Ancelotti (12 vs 6). And the way Pep won them was in a totally dominant way, breaking records. Ancelotti only won Seria A, Premier League and La Liga when Juve, Man Utd and Barcelona had an off-year, and those clubs resumed their dominance straight afterwards.

So when you compare the highs of both managers, Pep is superior to Ancelotti.

And when you compare the lows of both managers, Ancelotti has had much more humiliating failures. I mean Pep basically didn't have any notable failures other than some CL knockouts and not winning a league once in a while. Pep's worst seasons are the kind of seasons other elite managers get praised for.

Meanwhile Ancelotti bottled the league with Juventus twice in a row in 2000 and 2001, losing to Roman clubs Lazio and Roma who have no league-winning DNA whatsoever, while he coached the strong Juve team with Zidane. His league form with Milan was lackluster and the club sacrificed league runs for CL. But then he also had some bottle jobs in CL like being crushed 4-0 by Deportivo in 2004 after winning the first round 4-1, and the famous Istanbul final in 2005.

With PSG Ancelotti managed to bottle Ligue 1 to Montpellier in 2012, after taking over at PSG in the winter when it was first in the league and further strengthening the team with elite players Maxwell, Alex and Motta. Such thing does not happen to Guardiola in a million years. There is no possible scenario whatsoever in which Guardiola takes over a PSG team when it's leading the league, adds 3 more elite players and then loses the league to Montepellier of all clubs.

That's just comparing the results of both managers. Then you add the fact that Guardiola revolutionized the game, has had a bigger impact on the way football is played than any manager in the last 20 years, and has been consistently regarded as the best manager around by majority of football years for a decade now.

You posted pretty much the same thing on the last page. Calm down, Pep. It's just a thread on a forum.

 

[golden_blunder]

Greatest CL manager

 

[Carolina Red]

13 league titles at United, he won 3 leagues with Aberdeen before coming here.

He also won the Scottish First Division with St. Mirren before going to Aberdeen.

 

[Boycott]

I definitely agree that Ancelotti's work this season has been one of the best managerial performances in recent memory. I'd rank it easily his personal best which is of course saying something for someone of his pedigree. But maybe, precisely because what he did this year stands out so much that he still falls short that tiny bit. If he has a run similar or close to what he's been doing the past 3 years, a run that is consistent both domestically and in Europe, he would be in a much better position than he did pre this Real stint when his teams mostly lacked the authority and dominance of the very best.


I don't think you need to be a great tactician to produce an exciting team, especially in the PL. Sir Alex and Wenger were not obsessive tacticians either and some of their teams were very high exciting too. I think the term tactician is sometimes used to mean different things. Traditionally, a tactician is referred to someone who can read a game well and devise the best plan to nullify opponents and capitalize on their weaknesses. Mourinho, Rafa Benitez and most Italian managers fit that category. In the past decade or so, the term has become associated with ideologists, managers whose teams play with a clear vision and petterns of positions and pressing. This wasn't born with Pep of course but it has become the trend, meaning any manager whose team doesn't play with a defined pattern is considered not "a tactician". Ancelotti is definitely not one by this latter definition, but he most definitely is if we consider the former.

That's a good point but couldn't you equally say the real definition should be in the middle which would include Ferguson and Ancelotti because they would devise changes for certain games rather than being a stubborn ideologist. I would say Ferguson selecting Phil Neville to man mark Vieria in a 2-0 win over Arsenal was a great tactical move because it wouldn't have been what we would expect. Or putting Park to man mark Pirlo or Welbeck to man mark Xabi Alonso which was working perfectly until Nani was sent off. I would say realising a game level at 70 minutes is there for the taking if we take off a midfielder for an extra striker. We call him a great gambler but when does it happen so successfully so often that his gambles are clever tactical observations? For me it seems like we as football fans and the media love to hype up a dour 1-0 away win by one big club vs another as some tactical masterclass if it is done by a prime Mourinho yet when someone like Pulis did it against a big club it is park the bus and smash and grab. I guess what I'm saying is I find the tactician tag used to belittle some managers as unfair as they don't meet the sophisticated stereotype.

It reminds me of Harry Redknapp quipping after being praised for a tactical masterplan a 0-0 draw at the San Siro and 1-0 win at White Hart Lane to knock AC Milan out of the Champions League with Spurs. He was asked about it and rather than bask in the praise for stopping a team with Zlatan up front scoring in 180 minutes of football he remarked he was unhappy his team only scored once in 180 minutes of football because that was what he wants his team to do, not sit back and close off spaces to a superior team.

 

[youngrell]

He has a point though.

All managers and players' ultimate dream is to manage/play for the top clubs. It's very impressive to achieve that at the start of your career and succeed rather than having to wait for many years to do that. A player like Messi would not spend 10 years at a low level club to receive top offers just like Guardiola.

Football in 2024 is different to football in 1974 shocker.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

I don't see how anyone could rank Ancelotti above Pep. There is literally no argument for it.

The one thing that people use to counter Pep's success is stating that he only ever managed elite clubs with huge resources where he inherited extremely talented players.

Well you can't really use this argument in the case of comparing Ancelotti to Pep because Ancelotti has also only achieved success at elite clubs with huge resources where he already started with an extremely talented core of players. Ancelotti's legacy is entirely based on his stints at Milan and Real Madrid at the time when these two clubs were on the top of their game.

Ancelotti only spend few years of his coaching career in non-elite teams and didn't achieve anything of note there. While he didn't fail there and I don't hold it against him, he didn't do anything in smaller clubs to add to his legacy compared to Pep.

I understand that there is at least an argument to be made when comparing Pep to SAF or even to Klopp and Mourinho, as those managers also achieved success at relatively smaller clubs than the ones Pep managed, so they have something in their legacy that Pep doesn't have.

But Ancelotti literally doesn't have anything over Pep.

Even if you bring up the fact that Ancelotti has won more Champions League titles (5 vs 3), this is simply due to the fact that he managed for longer. Ancelotti has managed for 29 years, Guardiola for 17. Ancelotti has one CL title for every 5.8 years of his managerial career while Pep has won a CL title every 5.6 years. Pound-for-pound, Ancelotti and Pep therefore have similar CL success. Once Pep will have managed for 29 years, there's no way he doesn't have at least 5 CL trophies, unless he goes for international management.

Also when you compare the quality of those CL wins, Pep's teams were far more dominant. Every time Pep won the CL he also won the league, and he has two trebles. Meanwhile Ancelotti failed to win the league more often than not during his CL winning years. In fact he achieved most of his CL wins after he was already out of the title race for weeks, allowing him to rest players.

Where the comparison gets really silly is where you compare domestic league results as Pep absolutely blows Ancelotti out of the water when it comes to this. Ancelotti only won the Serie A one time in his 10 years in Italy. He won 2 La Liga titles in 5 years in Spain. His Premier League title with Chelsea was quality and I give him that, but it was also against a Man Utd that had just lost Cristiano Ronaldo and had already won it three times in a row. A year later United won the league again comfortably and Ancelotti was sacked. While Ancelotti indeed won a league title in every one of the big leagues in Europe, I don't see how winning Ligue 1 with PSG and Bundesliga with Bayern add anything to his legacy that would rival Pep.

Pep has already won twice as many league titles as Ancelotti (12 vs 6). And the way Pep won them was in a totally dominant way, breaking records, competing against some of the best teams in recent history. Ancelotti only won Serie A, Premier League and La Liga when Juve, Man Utd and Barcelona had an off-year, and those clubs resumed their dominance straight afterwards. Well we don't know what will happen next year but if Ancelotti wins the league again with Real, that will literally be the only time he would win back-to-back league titles in his career.

So when you compare the highs of both managers and the trophy haul, Pep is clearly superior to Ancelotti.

And when you compare the lows of both managers, Ancelotti has had much more humiliating failures, it doesn't even compare. I mean Pep basically didn't have any notable failures other than losing some CL knockouts and not winning a league once in a while. Pep's worst seasons are the kind of seasons other elite managers get praised for.

Meanwhile Ancelotti bottled the league with Juventus twice in a row in 2000 and 2001, losing to Roman clubs Lazio and Roma who have no league-winning DNA whatsoever, while he coached the strong Juve team with Zidane. His league form with Milan was lackluster and the club sacrificed league runs for CL. But then he also had some bottle jobs in CL like being crushed 4-0 by Deportivo in 2004 after winning the first round 4-1, and the famous Istanbul final in 2005.

With PSG Ancelotti managed to bottle Ligue 1 to Montpellier in 2012, after taking over at PSG in the winter when it was first in the league and further strengthening the team with elite players Maxwell, Alex and Motta. Such thing does not happen to Guardiola in a million years. There is no possible scenario whatsoever in which Guardiola takes over a PSG team when it's leading the league, adds 3 more elite players and then loses the league to Montepellier of all clubs. This is why such comparions are totally ridiculous. Pep basically doesn't fail, ever. He only has failures if the criteria for failure is literally "not winning everything you can win, every season".

That's just comparing the results of both managers. Then you add the fact that Guardiola revolutionized the game, has had a bigger impact on the way football is played than any manager in the last 20 years, and has been consistently regarded as the best manager around by majority of football years for a decade now.

You can't give Pep credit for stuff he hasn't done. Winning the CL is hard. Let him win them first before adding them to his tally.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Why didn't we get him after SAF???

 

[Kelly15]

I hate to say this as I love SAF, but Ancelotti is now the greatest manager of all time. I think Chelsea's biggest mistake was letting him go. How I wanted Carlos after SAF. Twas not to be. I always felt he was massively under rated. I don't know if it was the cigars or his cool persona but he seemed to fly under the radar compared to a Pep in the media. I'm not sure why the media fawns over Pep so much considering he is a one dimensional Manger. Probably the way Pep acts. He sure is a bitter and seems to get rattled easy by the media.

 

[Theonas]

Why didn't we get him after SAF???

I think because he didn't fancy it. A lot of managers, especially those with established reputations wouldn't want to follow an icon like Sir Alex. As the old saying goes, you want to be the man after the man. I would guess that decision becomes even easier when your other option is Real Marid where you have what was at the time arguably the best squad in the world and ready to win their 10th CL.

 

[Theonas]

I hate to say this as I love SAF, but Ancelotti is now the greatest manager of all time. I think Chelsea's biggest mistake was letting him go. How I wanted Carlos after SAF. Twas not to be. I always felt he was massively under rated. I don't know if it was the cigars or his cool persona but he seemed to fly under the radar compared to a Pep in the media. I'm not sure why the media fawns over Pep so much considering he is a one dimensional Manger. Probably the way Pep acts. He sure is a bitter and seems to get rattled easy by the media.

No, it's mostly the fact that he never built a dominant team. 2022 was the first time his CL winning team won the league and he never won back to back league titles. It's mostly that I would say that he didn't get the same fawning as others. He is doing a much better job in that regard however in the last 3 years and surprise surprise, he is getting more attention. It's not really that complicated.

 

[GatoLoco]

Well you can't really use this argument in the case of comparing Ancelotti to Pep because Ancelotti has also only achieved success at elite clubs with huge resources where he already started with an extremely talented core of players. Ancelotti's legacy is entirely based on his stints at Milan and Real Madrid at the time when these two clubs were on the top of their game.

I can be more or less in agreement with many of the things you say in your post but not with this. I mean, Real Madrid were at the top of their game in 2017 or close to it in 2014 but never in the post-Cristiano era. Even less so when he had all of Courtois, Militao and Alaba out for around 8 months this season.

It is one thing to say that he is better than Pep, which I don't think he is, but it is quite another to resort to a strange hyperbole to take away a merit that he has more than earned on the pitch.

I mean, it was Joselu who scored a brace vs Bayern, not frigging Marco Van Basten.

 

[WeePat]

I'm getting tempted to place him at my top 3.

Definitely deserve to be in the top 5.

I still feel his active look a tad better than what they are i mean after all look at the teams that he's managed, and he didn't really build any of them.
Underachieved with an exceptional juve side
Ac millan already had great players and had just won the league in 99 I believe And while his cl triumphs were impressive his league record was utter shite.
Chelsea's was already a very well settled well drilled team with amazing players with most of them in their peak and only managed to beat a clearly declining united side by one point and then imploded the season after.
Establish psg's early league dominance but did little with them in Europe but still a great success in my opinion.
Gave Madrid their decima in impressive fashion, great success but the players at his disposal were unreal.
Disappointing tenure with bayern.
Did ok with Napoli.
Did ok with everton.

And now has done incredibly well with Madrid at the end of his career.

He's such a cool guy and I love him SAF aside he would be my first choice by quite a distance if you already have a well settled team with great players.
We as united fans must woe the fact that we never had the pleasure of this man managing us.

He's in my eyes the European manager of the year and well deserved indeed.

Sorry to pick on a 2 year old post mate but it's bit harsh to say 'imploded the following season'.

Chelsea finished 2nd. I guess one could say that was back when Chelsea had standards, but even if those extremely high standards, his sacking was universally viewed at the time as an unbelievably harsh and unfair and it's looked worse and worse as the years have gone by.

 

[Theonas]

That's a good point but couldn't you equally say the real definition should be in the middle which would include Ferguson and Ancelotti because they would devise changes for certain games rather than being a stubborn ideologist. I would say Ferguson selecting Phil Neville to man mark Vieria in a 2-0 win over Arsenal was a great tactical move because it wouldn't have been what we would expect. Or putting Park to man mark Pirlo or Welbeck to man mark Xabi Alonso which was working perfectly until Nani was sent off. I would say realising a game level at 70 minutes is there for the taking if we take off a midfielder for an extra striker. We call him a great gambler but when does it happen so successfully so often that his gambles are clever tactical observations? For me it seems like we as football fans and the media love to hype up a dour 1-0 away win by one big club vs another as some tactical masterclass if it is done by a prime Mourinho yet when someone like Pulis did it against a big club it is park the bus and smash and grab. I guess what I'm saying is I find the tactician tag used to belittle some managers as unfair as they don't meet the sophisticated stereotype.

It reminds me of Harry Redknapp quipping after being praised for a tactical masterplan a 0-0 draw at the San Siro and 1-0 win at White Hart Lane to knock AC Milan out of the Champions League with Spurs. He was asked about it and rather than bask in the praise for stopping a team with Zlatan up front scoring in 180 minutes of football he remarked he was unhappy his team only scored once in 180 minutes of football because that was what he wants his team to do, not sit back and close off spaces to a superior team.

If you are talking about the media narrative, I couldn't agree more. I follow mostly English media and it's just not a country that is interested in tactics. It's ingrained deeply in the culture that the game is appreciated more when it's visceral and an expression of physical and mental attributes. This is reflected when they talk about tactics with their basic analysis of anything low scoring equating to some sort of master plan. When switched from 4-4-2 in Europe to an extra man in the middle, that was considered being very tactical, when it was no more than any middle or lower team would do. It's literally just adding more people behind the ball. Ironically, this disregard of tactics is one of the biggest reasons some of us fell in love with the English game and which gave it and still does to an extent its very charm-

Having said, not all defensive strategies are just putting men behind the ball, some of them are indeed the work of a smart manager who is very good at detecting flaws and devising suitable strategies. I think Rafa Benitez for example was brilliant at that. Mourinho is clearly another one and you watch the Serie A, especially in the '90s and '00s, it's hard not to detect how much they look at the game as a chess match. They enjoy the cerebral part of the game maybe more than any other nation which is probably why they lose a lot when they don't have the best players in the world, unlike the English who can still offer a product that is exciting.

I think what the Dutch do and what Pep and the people after him from Klopp to Nagelsmann is a bit different. Their strength is not necessarily how to win the chess game within the game, but more how to orchestrate a unit to move in cohesion and perfect sync where all parts add up to a greater whole. To be honest, the word tactician feels misplaced for me here but that's maybe because I grew up in the '90s and early '00s when the term referred to the Italian masters. Maybe it is a newer interpretation or maybe it's just a reflection of a trend in football and society in general where pro action is valued and preferred over reaction. It worth noting however that when I say Sir Alex was not a tactician or Pep's strength is not changing a game from the bench, etc... I don't mean it as a criticism, I see it more as a sensibilities preference from these men and how they and what they enjoyed about the game. You are not going to be the best at something you don't like naturally, especially compared to someone who loves it. I think the variety is what makes selecting the best ever an impossible task and what gives football such a unique variety.

 

[Red the Bear]

Sorry to pick on a 2 year old post mate but it's bit harsh to say 'imploded the following season'.

Chelsea finished 2nd. I guess one could say that was back when Chelsea had standards, but even if those extremely high standards, his sacking was universally viewed at the time as an unbelievably harsh and unfair and it's looked worse and worse as the years have gone by.

Well as you said you had standards and yeah poor wording by my part and i agree, you should have probably kept him around with hindsight.

Still I don't rate his chelsea stint that much, I believe you had the superior squad compared to us by that point and while you barely won the league you still fell off the season after and that should count against him the same way his success the season before does the opposite and if im not mistaken you were baying for your first cl trophy back then so he was brought in with an eye towards Europe as well? Which he didn't do too well in either, in fact his european record notwithstanding his Madrid and Milan spells is quite middling.

As for his new ranking he's firmly in my top 3, he hasn’t had any widespread tactical impact akin to pep, mou,sachi and michels but his longevity and european haul firmly plants him there, of you have a group of already well established superstars looking for that extra push and not chained to a specific playstyle you won't get much better than him.

 

[SungSam7]

No, because of "Aberdeen".

Pep, Cappello, Cruyff, Ancelotti (after 1 year working with Reggiana) etc. all started working for top clubs, which was a huge mistake for their legacy. They should have rejected Ajax, Barca, Milan, Parma etc.

Instead, Pep should have begun at Getafe, Cruyff at Groningen, Cappello at Salernitana, and (Ancelotti should have stayed with Reggiana for 8 years rather than 1) and spend at least 8 years there and move to an underperforming legacy club and spend another 8 years to win their first title.

It doesn't matter whether Pep got his first offer from Barca, Cappello from AC Milan, Cruyff from Ajax/Barca etc. (unlike SAF who got zero such offers for many years), they should have rejected and followed the steps of SAF.

That's the only way to become the greatest manager of all time, being invisible to top clubs for almost 15-20 years and staying at each club for at least 8 years no matter whether it's a top-club or not, and then regularly underperforming in the UCL.

Ancelotti, Pep can win another 3 UCLs, 10 league titles, 20 cup titles, doesn't matter, none of that matches "Aberdeen" trophy..

Don't Man City have a forum you could gather with and talk about the Baldy money man and rejoice?

 

[LA BOMBA]

I can be more or less in agreement with many of the things you say in your post but not with this. I mean, Real Madrid were at the top of their game in 2017 or close to it in 2014 but never in the post-Cristiano era. Even less so when he had all of Courtois, Militao and Alaba out for around 8 months this season.

It is one thing to say that he is better than Pep, which I don't think he is, but it is quite another to resort to a strange hyperbole to take away a merit that he has more than earned on the pitch.

I mean, it was Joselu who scored a brace vs Bayern, not frigging Marco Van Basten.

My point was that Ancelotti and Pep have had comparable levels of resources and talent in their clubs in their most successful stins on which their legacy was based.

Real Madrid is the biggest club in Europe and Ancelotti has been there for 3 years already. If his squad is not complete enough than this is ultimately his fault because he should have either built the squad better or tried harder to prevent injuries for happening.

Injuries should be blamed on the manager as well because the manager is ultimately at least partly responsible for the coaching staff, training process and level of intensity his teams play. So if Ancelotti's key players got injured, that's on him as well.

Why does Guardiola never have such injury problems? Because he is a PERFECTIONIST who makes sure that EVERYTHING in the club runs as it should, including the doctors and nutritionist. At Bayern he called out their legendary long-time doctor and had him replaced instantly. Something that Ancelotti would never dare to do.

Also Guardiola's style of play and coaching means his players can play several positions, he can adapt to any situation by making various tactical adjustments and he is the best at coaching young talent and adding players to the team as the season progresses.

This is another thing where Guardiola is miles ahead of Ancelotti and why you never see City crippled with injuries to such extent. Guardiola would never end up in a situation where 3 key players would be out for 8 months, and if he did, it would not matter anyway because he would adapt and make a different tactical set up and within months he'd have some youth players firing and winning every game again.

As for the Joselu comment, we live in an era of football where there has never been less exceptionally talented players. Yes, Real Madrid played Joselu, but the Bayern team they played again was not the Bayern of 2001 or 2013 either. We're in an era of football where there aren't even 5 elite strikers in the entire game. There's just not as many marquee players around as there were in 00s and 10s. Every club struggles with this, even Pep's City team is considered inferior to his Bayern and Barcelona teams in terms of individual players.

 

[es-muellert]

Even if you bring up the fact that Ancelotti has won more Champions League titles (5 vs 3), this is simply due to the fact that he managed for longer. Ancelotti has managed for 29 years, Guardiola for 17. Ancelotti has one CL title for every 5.8 years of his managerial career while Pep has won a CL title every 5.6 years. Pound-for-pound, Ancelotti and Pep therefore have similar CL success. Once Pep will have managed for 29 years, there's no way he doesn't have at least 5 CL trophies, unless he goes for international management.

By that logic, Zidane is the greatest of all time. He won 3 CL trophies in 4 years.
If he had already been a coach for 17 years like Guardiola, he would already have won 12 or 13 CL titles.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

He has a point though.

All managers and players' ultimate dream is to manage/play for the top clubs. It's very impressive to achieve that at the start of your career and succeed rather than having to wait for many years to do that. A player like Messi would not spend 10 years at a low level club to receive top offers just like Guardiola.

A lot of these managers that go straight into a top club, or do so at the first sign of success aren't doing it because they were already considered far too visionary to have to work their way up...it's usually just the usual football "jobs for your mates" stuff where ex-great players of a club/nation often get to cut a lot of corners if they show a certain level of potential. For every one that succeeds, you get a lot that don't.

 

[RedRocket08]

If Ancelotti should be ranked higher than Pep based 3 wins to 2 head to head and 3 to 1 progression in knockouts

When we use this exact Metric with Pep vs Ferguson
2-0 head to head, 2-0 progression. In 2 CL finals both one sided matches which Ferguson admitted was his worst game ever

Can we draw the same conclusions?

I think you have to consider the context with regard to those 2 teams - at least that's the way I would look at it. Pep in 2009 and 2011 had a better team than United when he won those head to heads, and I mean the best teams of that club's history. As biased as I was as a United fan, I personally expected Pep's Barca to have an edge in those games because of the players they had.

Ancelotti's Real vs Pep's Bayern or Ancelotti's Real v Pep's City were more evenly matched imo (Definitely with Madrid v City matchups), but that's just my opinion - I expected Pep to win those City matchups especially, but Ancelotti found a way. City have outspent Real for transfers for 5 of the last 7 seasons, with only 1 CL to show for Real's 3, the record becomes more insane if you go back 10 years because Real have 3 more CLs to add to that!

I think Ancelotti's ability to repeatedly pull of wins with underdog teams in clutch games is underrated, which for me ranks him above Pep - Both are all time great managers, and I think it's subjective who you rank above the other. From this modern era, I believe Pep will eventually be regarded as the most successful manager ever - But I think as of now I'd have SAF, Carlo and Pep in that order, that's my view as a United fan but any Real fan would rank Carlo above the rest and any City fan would rank Pep above the rest.

I think the gap between those three managers in the GOAT debate is just really too close to call for a variety of reasons (Carlo being the best manager for clutch games, Fergie for his longevity with just 1 team, Pep for his consistently dominant teams that blew away the league through the course of a season). If United were given the choice between Pep and Carlo right now, I think our board would definitely find it hard to pick between those two?

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Why does Guardiola never have such injury problems? Because he is a PERFECTIONIST who makes sure that EVERYTHING in the club runs as it should, including the doctors and nutritionist. At Bayern he called out their legendary long-time doctor and had him replaced instantly. Something that Ancelotti would never dare to do.

You mean the same Guardiola that tested positive for illegal performance enhancing drugs in 2002 as a player?

It is not far-fetched or a crazy conspiracy to say his teams have a high likelihood of taking PED's.

Especially as not only did he take the illegal substance, he has a history of being involved in cheating. He was manager of Barcelona during the period that they were paying off referees. He is manager of Man City during part of the period that they have committed 115 illegal breaches.

So it is not at all unlikely that his players have at some point taken illegal PED's.

 

[GatoLoco]

My point was that Ancelotti and Pep have had comparable levels of resources and talent in their clubs in their most successful stins on which their legacy was based.

And my point is I don't think Ancelotti has coached a Real Madrid "at the top of their game" since he came in 2022. Rather, it has been considered a team in transition and development that had to deal with Benzema's absence, the transition to a midfield without the historical Kroos, Casemiro and Modric and the improvement of Vinicius, who was very far from his current level under Lopetegui, Solari and Zidane.

Bayern in 2013 though...

Real Madrid is the biggest club in Europe and Ancelotti has been there for 3 years already. If his squad is not complete enough than this is ultimately his fault because he should have either built the squad better or tried harder to prevent injuries for happening.

It has nothing to do with how complete the squad is in origin. The injuries happened early in the season so it is mostly Florentino's responsibility not to spend the money in the winter market.

I mean, even though we don't know what would have happened I very much doubt City would have not signed anyone in such circumstances.

Injuries should be blamed on the manager as well because the manager is ultimately at least partly responsible for the coaching staff, training process and level of intensity his teams play. So if Ancelotti's key players got injured, that's on him as well.

Why does Guardiola never have such injury problems? Because he is a PERFECTIONIST who makes sure that EVERYTHING in the club runs as it should, including the doctors and nutritionist. At Bayern he called out their legendary long-time doctor and had him replaced instantly. Something that Ancelotti would never dare to do.

I am not an expert at cruciate ligament injuries and their very recent proliferation in modern-day football, so allow me to be sceptical before agreeing or disagreeing with your categorical assertions.

Also Guardiola's style of play and coaching means his players can play several positions, he can adapt to any situation by making various tactical adjustments and he is the best at coaching young talent and adding players to the team as the season progresses.

This is another thing where Guardiola is miles ahead of Ancelotti and why you never see City crippled with injuries to such extent. Guardiola would never end up in a situation where 3 key players would be out for 8 months, and if he did, it would not matter anyway because he would adapt and make a different tactical set up and within months he'd have some youth players firing and winning every game again.

We don't know what would happened at City. We do know Ancelotti has adapted.

As for the Joselu comment, we live in an era of football where there has never been less exceptionally talented players. Yes, Real Madrid played Joselu, but the Bayern team they played again was not the Bayern of 2001 or 2013 either. We're in an era of football where there aren't even 5 elite strikers in the entire game. There's just not as many marquee players around as there were in 00s and 10s. Every club struggles with this, even Pep's City team is considered inferior to his Bayern and Barcelona teams in terms of individual players.

It was you who mentioned clubs at the peak of their powers for your comparison. Had Ancelotti trained the current Vinicius and Mbappe since 2022, well, I wouldn't say anything. But since that is not the case, we can at least agree Joselu is much worse than Haaland and Julian Alvarez, Lewandowski and Madzukic and Messi, Etoo and Ibrahimovic, right?

 

[RedRocket08]

Even if you bring up the fact that Ancelotti has won more Champions League titles (5 vs 3), this is simply due to the fact that he managed for longer. Ancelotti has managed for 29 years, Guardiola for 17. Ancelotti has one CL title for every 5.8 years of his managerial career while Pep has won a CL title every 5.6 years. Pound-for-pound, Ancelotti and Pep therefore have similar CL success. Once Pep will have managed for 29 years, there's no way he doesn't have at least 5 CL trophies, unless he goes for international management.

Yeah but if you use this same metric, Zidane pound for pound obliterates both Pep and Carlo, so where would you put Zizou? I do think Pep will end up with more CLs than Carlo over a long period of time, but I rate both of them as elite managers for different qualities - Pep as an unrivalled builder of dominant teams, and Carlo as the best clutch-game manager I've seen. I rate Carlo above Pep at present, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else puts Pep above Carlo -These 2 and SAF are a fair distance above the rest for me, with very little to separate between them.

 

[Theonas]

I think you have to consider the context with regard to those 2 teams - at least that's the way I would look at it. Pep in 2009 and 2011 had a better team than United when he won those head to heads, and I mean the best teams of that club's history. As biased as I was as a United fan, I personally expected Pep's Barca to have an edge in those games because of the players they had.

Ancelotti's Real vs Pep's Bayern or Ancelotti's Real v Pep's City were more evenly matched imo (Definitely with Madrid v City matchups), but that's just my opinion - I expected Pep to win those City matchups especially, but Ancelotti found a way. City have outspent Real for transfers for 5 of the last 7 seasons, with only 1 CL to show for Real's 3, the record becomes more insane if you go back 10 years because Real have 3 more CLs to add to that!

I think Ancelotti's ability to repeatedly pull of wins with underdog teams in clutch games is underrated, which for me ranks him above Pep - Both are all time great managers, and I think it's subjective who you rank above the other. From this modern era, I believe Pep will eventually be regarded as the most successful manager ever - But I think as of now I'd have SAF, Carlo and Pep in that order, that's my view as a United fan but any Real fan would rank Carlo above the rest and any City fan would rank Pep above the rest.

I think the gap between those three managers in the GOAT debate is just really too close to call for a variety of reasons (Carlo being the best manager for clutch games, Fergie for his longevity with just 1 team, Pep for his consistently dominant teams that blew away the league through the course of a season). If United were given the choice between Pep and Carlo right now, I think our board would definitely find it hard to pick between those two?

Underdog teams? Just because they play like underdog teams, doesn't make them one. They just look like that because they have a fluid laissez-faire tactical approach that forces their hand when faced with tactically drilled teams. Pound for pound his Milan and Real are were/are the best squads in the planet. This current Real have 2 or 3 potential Balon d'Or winners. They could spend less because their status is so attractive they could get the likes of Kroos, Alaba and Rüdiger for free. Out of all the things I have read on this forum, calling Real an underdog team has to be the boldest claim.

When Ancelotti actually managed an underdog team like Napoli, they had one of their worst seasons and his job was clearly bettered by the likes of Sarri and especially Spalletti.

 

[giorno]

 

[Macern]

you can argue Ancelotti despite all he has done is only now entering his best years.

Probably because of Davide Ancelotti.

 

[RedRocket08]

Underdog teams? Just because they play like underdog teams, doesn't make them one. They just look like that because they have a fluid laissez-faire tactical approach that forces their hand when faced with tactically drilled teams. Pound for pound his Milan and Real are were/are the best squads in the planet. This current Real have 2 or 3 potential Balon d'Or winners. They could spend less because their status is so attractive they could get the likes of Kroos, Alaba and Rüdiger for free. Out of all the things I have read on this forum, calling Real an underdog team has to be the boldest claim.

When Ancelotti actually managed an underdog team like Napoli, they had one of their worst seasons and his job was clearly bettered by the likes of Sarri and especially Spalletti.

The reason I put Real as underdogs in those matchups with City is because City were odds on favourites to win those ties. Is it not then fair to call them underdogs, because they were not the betting favourites? Yes Real have an X-factor in this tournament because they've won it over and over. All your points about attracting high-calibre players is also true - but those Real teams still beat the odds to win it over City. This current Real are supposed to be a team in transition, and were nowhere near as dominant as Pep's City in their domestic league right (A league that is considered to be much stronger than La Liga), so why shouldn't City be considered the favourites in those ties?

Your points about Ancelotti and his stints in lesser teams like Napoli are true (and he probably should've won more domestic titles with the teams he coached), but you can't deny he's consistently got the better of Pep when his teams weren't expected to win those games.

 

[Red the Bear]

Probably because of Davide Ancelotti.

Does he have any ambitions of own in terms of transitioning to a full managerial career?

 

[Taribo's Gap]

Does he have any ambitions of own in terms of transitioning to a full managerial career?

Reims are after him this summer. I'm sure he will eventually.

 

[Red the Bear]

Reims are after him this summer. I'm sure he will eventually.

One to watch out for certainly.

 

[KobbieKobe]

I understand some say that Pep, Mourinho or SAF are better managers than Carlo but how can some say that klopp is better than Carlo? He won more than klopp as a player and manager. If you say Klopp plays attractive football then Carlo's AC Milan and Chelsea team played very attacking minded football and he was unlucky to get fired from chelsea and Real madrid. Munich and Napoli didn't give him much chance. Carlo in my opinion is the best manager ever or atleast second to whoever it is.