Carlo will have to settle for celebrating a second league+CL double in three seasons while City throws an open bus parade in honor of not getting as many crippling injuries.
Where does Ancelotti rank among all time great managers?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
Carlo will have to settle for celebrating a second league+CL double in three seasons while City throws an open bus parade in honor of not getting as many crippling injuries.
I understand what you mean. It's true that City were favourites, but my point is that this was precisely because of how Real play. They just don't play with the same authority and dominance than most top teams. Ancelotti and Real have been getting a lot of credit and deservedly so, for how they always find a way and for their winning mentality etc... I have no problem with that and even agree with it. But to also credit them for overcoming the odds and beating sides they shouldn't beat is like praising EtH for achieving a miracle by beating City in the FA Cup fina because the odds were so one sided before the game. It neglects the fact that the odds were only that one sided because of how bad we've been and because of how City have been so you can credit the manager for finding a way in a specific game but you can't credit him for something that is only the case because he is partly responsible for not creating a team that consistently plays better. I really hope my point comes across
City just won 4 league titles in a row. Ancelotti never even won 2 league titles back to back.
There's literally no comparison between Guardiola and Ancelotti.
Zidane won three champions league titles in a row. Guardiola never even won 2 CL titles back to back.
There's literally no comparison between Zidane and Guardiola.
How convincing do you think this argument is?
It's much more difficult to win the Premier League than the CL. It's the strongest league in the world and the modern equivalent of 90s Serie A. The closest we have to Super League right now.
Until we have a true European Super League with a league format, we can't use the CL as a measuring stick, as it is a cup competition. It does not reflect the form over entire season.
But if you think that the Champions League should be counted as more prestigious since it involves entire Europe, then I raise you a FIFA Club World Cup which involves the entire WORLD and which Guardiola has won 3 times, more than any other manager (Ancelotti and Zidane both have only 2).
Lad your own argument is immediately squashed by the fact that city have won the last 4 titles.
That is not competitive or challenging its dominance by one team with vastly more resources than than the others.
Carlo is absolutely in the top 3 coaches of all time.
1. SAF
2. Carlo
3. Pep
Carlo has won at more clubs than Pep and with far less resources at hand. Pep has gone to already winning clubs and won with them and that's about it.
No it isn’t.
I understand what you mean. It's true that City were favourites, but my point is that this was precisely because of how Real play. They just don't play with the same authority and dominance than most top teams. Ancelotti and Real have been getting a lot of credit and deservedly so, for how they always find a way and for their winning mentality etc... I have no problem with that and even agree with it. But to also credit them for overcoming the odds and beating sides they shouldn't beat is like praising EtH for achieving a miracle by beating City in the FA Cup fina because the odds were so one sided before the game. It neglects the fact that the odds were only that one sided because of how bad we've been and because of how City have been so you can credit the manager for finding a way in a specific game but you can't credit him for something that is only the case because he is partly responsible for not creating a team that consistently plays better. I really hope my point comes across
I broadly agree that RM as some kind of 'underdog' team is a bit ridiculous. But there's also a bit of hindsight here.
After Chelsea comfortably beat RM in 2021 semis, the general consensus was that the squad was too old to keep up with the high-pressing, fast-paced English game. They also couldn't score goals since Cristiano's departure. That summer, RM lost Ramos, Varane, and Odegaard, and signed Alaba and Camavinga, which made the squad even weaker on paper. The entire summer was spent thinking about signing Mbappe and it didn't pan out in the end, leaving RM in somewhat concerning state.
When Carlo joined in summer 2021, most people would have agreed that RM's squad was worse than City, Liverpool, Chelsea, and probably Bayern and PSG. It consisted of players on the wrong side of 30, younger players who weren't performing, and a bunch of flops who they hadn't gotten rid of.
Carlo deserves a lot of credit because the club has won two league+CL doubles in his three seasons at the club, without the signings being an obvious and clear improvement over what was there before. That's not all down to him (it does involve players maturing and improving their play) but he is a big part of it.
It's not because it involves entire Europe. It's because the strongest teams apart from Manchester City currently are outside of the premier league. Bayern was the better team against arsenal over two legs (and Bayern is not even at its best right now), and Real Madrid would currently also be favorites against any team in the premier league apart from Manchester City.
That's not the case for the best teams of other continents.
It also requires different skills to be in top form and best shape on the point and to handle the pressure in a semi final of the Champions League compared to having a winning streak against mostly inferior teams. It could be debated what is harder, but if I remember correctly, even Guardiola himself said it's the hardest to win the champions league
Btw, when it comes to League performances, Zidane is also great. He won 2/4 leagues. But you need to consider that he took over mid season in his first season when Real was already behind. From the day he took over, they collected the most points of any team so it's reasonable to assume that he would have won that la liga title as well, had he been with them from the start which would make it 3/4 which is close to Guardiola's record (12/15).
Please also don't forget that he was competing against a treble winning Barcelona and an Atlético that was a title contender and made two champions league finals in three years while Sevilla was a serial Euro League winner. Back then, la liga was the strongest league in Europe by far, and probably even stronger than today's premier league, especially at the top.
That combined with the vastly better Champions League results "pound for pound" as you called it, should put Zidane a tier above Guardiola
Last edited:
Ancelotti bottled the Serie A with Juventus twice in a row in 2000 and 2001 to Lazio and Roma, teams with far less pull and resources, who haven't won the league since.
Ancelotti failed to win the Ligue 1 with PSG even though he took the team over when they were first and added 3 more elite players to the team. He lost the league to Montpellier.
Ancelotti also lost the La Liga to a broke Barcelona team that had geriatric Busquets playing as a pivot.
I love how people want to downplay Pep's achievements by saying that winning the league with the team with the most resources is not impressive, but then praise managers who have failed to win the league in such position multiple times, to a far lesser opposition than Pep has been facing.
If you give Pep 0 points for winning the leagues with City, then you need to give Ancelotti like -40 points for bottling the league 4 times when he was in such position.
And City does not have more resources than other PL teams in the FFP era. All the players that were signed by Guardiola were players who could have easily been picked up by any other of the big English clubs at the time when he signed them. When the likes of Rodri and Ruben Dias were signed no one was considering this as some sort of galactico Neymar-to-PSG type of signing.
I said it many times, City cheated into being an elite tier club, but once it got to this level it hasn't done anything that other elite tier clubs couldn't have done. If City didn't exist in such form, Pep would have gone to United or Chelsea and he'd have similar level of dominance, if those two clubs would let him run things his way.
You can't be serious with this.
Also, Pep can't win at countries he's never coached in.
Going by your CL argument, then Carlo is also above SAF ?
The only reason why City were favorites in that matchup was because Pep was the coach, switch the manager to say Pellegrini and Madrid immediately becomes the favorite
Many of those City players were never rated as highly as now before Pep.
City in 2015 were they CL favorites? No one even thought of them. It was even a shock they got past the knockout, the next season immediately Pep joined they suddenly became favourite. What changed in those 12months?
Madrid will roll out a team of serial CL winners like Carvajal, Alaba Kroos Modric Benzema vs City with no CL winner like Haaland Foden KdB, Rodri yet we will anoint City the favourite.
Is there another team Madrid will play with players who have never won the CL and we claim Madrid are underdogs
Switch Pep to Madrid and Carlo to City and the perception will change because Peps side are always expected to dominate and win
Last edited:
Thats why the arguments lacked consistency, the same point they try to shoot Pep down with when used with Ferguson you start seeing pretzel turns
Yes, it is. Hence we see very average teams finishing 4th or lower but fluking a CL win (Liverpool, Chelsea, etc.)
We don't actually see "very average teams" fluking CL wins all that often.
Liverpool made it to another CL final a few years later, were managed by one of the better managers of the 00s, had a number of excellent players in their squad including a future WC winner. Chelsea had a core of players that had played a CL final, won multiple PL titles, etc. They weren't at the peak of their strenght when they won the CL but they were very good teams.
In fact the CL is usually won by a 'top' club. The final is usually won by the favorite. Teams that debut in a CL final haven't won it in ages. It's very hard for an actual 'average team' to fluke it.
Which also means that even if you’re the very best team in Europe it’s hard to win, whereas you’d be almost guaranteed to win your league.
I don't think there's much of a point in comparing 'difficulty levels' here. They are different competitions.
When top teams play in a league campaign, most of their matches are against teams with considerably worse squads and much lower resources. They are games the top team "should" win. In the Champions League, you cannot win the competition without facing at least one rival that you "shouldn't" win against. That is the fundamental difference between the two.
City won the PL this year but if you look at individual results, they didn't beat many top teams. In six matches against the rest of the top four, they won 1 (against Villa). They didn't beat Arsenal in the Charity Shield, didn't beat Sevilla in the European Supercup, and didn't beat Real Madrid in the Champions League. They won the league by beating teams they should beat.
But that won't win you the Champions League.
When top teams play in a league campaign, most of their matches are against teams with considerably worse squads and much lower resources. They are games the top team "should" win. In the Champions League, you cannot win the competition without facing at least one rival that you "shouldn't" win against. That is the fundamental difference between the two.
City won the PL this year but if you look at individual results, they didn't beat many top teams. In six matches against the rest of the top four, they won 1 (against Villa). They didn't beat Arsenal in the Charity Shield, didn't beat Sevilla in the European Supercup, and didn't beat Real Madrid in the Champions League. They won the league by beating teams they should beat.
But that won't win you the Champions League.
That also means that randomness factor increases, and teams not good enough to win the league have the better chance in cup. That's why there were so many winners who were clearly second best or even mediocre in their domestic leagues.
Get your facts straight. They played a semifinal in 2016 with Pellegrini and they spend more than anyone else on the continent. Pep still lost to Monaco in his first season and it took him 5 years and over 1 billion spent to match Pellegrini’s CL result.
They’ve met 4 times in the CL and Carlo has won 3 of those duels.
The first one was in 2014 between Pep’s Bayern, a team that prior to Pep had reached 3 of the last 4 finals, while Ancelotti had taken over a Madrid team that had not been in a final since 2002 (12 years) and Carlo won it 5-0 on aggregate, against the odds. He transformed Modric and Benzena, he found a way of using Di Maria in the midfield.
I don't think that's really true.
The reason City were favorites is because they were often reigning champions of the consensus 'strongest' domestic league. RM weren't domestic champions in 3 of their 4 matchups.
The only recent matchup where RM had the upper hand in favoritism was last year, when City wiped them off the park.
From Peps first season when they werent even champions, Many people had City as CL favorite
City won the EPL in 2014, they were not considered favorite in the next CL campaign
Last edited:
Madrid met Bayern in 2012. Madrid was favorite despite Bayern making a final in 2010 and Madrid not making a final in 10yrs
Bayern had multiple CL winners this year under Tuchel and were still the underdog vs Madrid
Last season City with 0 CL were considered favorites vs Madrid
How many times in the CL has Madrid been considered an underdog vs any team
Last edited:
The PL wasn’t that good… Leicester also won the PL and they weren’t favourites to win the CL.
We are talking about Pep vs Carlo in the CL… And the results so far are 3-1 for Carlo despite Pep unlimited spending every year and Ancelotti having to rely on Joselu as his only real striker…
EPL wasn't that good but suddenly became that good 12months later when Pep joined that made City the favorite from his first season
Pep played Carlo 2 seasons ago without a striker. Foden was his false 9
Talking about the games Carlo has won 3 Pep has won 2
Madrid don't have to do unlimited spending when they can get Mbappe Kroos Rudiger Alaba for a huge discount
Rafa Benitez once had a superior record to Mourinho in the CL despite managing an average Liverpool side whereas the other had the most expensive team in the land, maybe the world. What did you read into that?
Almost as if he didn't recently manage Everton.
Fair points all of these. Ancelotti did an excellent job helping this team grow. I think the last 3 jobs is his best managerial work. He reminds me a bit of how Sir Alex just became better with age at handling younger generations and honing his tactical skills.
That’s not relevant. Benitez has never had a superior CL cv to Mourinho, since the day Mourinho won the UCL with Porto.
Ancelotti has won 5 of the 16 UCL KO stages he’s taken part in….