Well I’ll give you that he has never demonstrated it but that is why I made the thread as we have spent insane money and if we were willing to do that Pep was the right choice
If Pep took over us instead of City would we have won the PL ?
- Thread starter 432JuanMata
- Start date
I believe so, yes. He is one of the greatest coaches ever. With the size of the club and the financial backing, you have to believe he would have turned us into the force City are now.
The rebuild that would have been required after the shambles LVG left the squad in is just disgraceful. I think Pep would have struggled just as Jose did in the beginning, but he would have been given more time, money and belief to get us back to the top.
The rebuild that would have been required after the shambles LVG left the squad in is just disgraceful. I think Pep would have struggled just as Jose did in the beginning, but he would have been given more time, money and belief to get us back to the top.
100% he’s a fecking class manager.
Hard to tell. It depends on who's in charge of City.
I'm leaning slightly more towards 'no'. And even if he managed to win a title, the team would be nowhere near as good as his City team(s).
I'm leaning slightly more towards 'no'. And even if he managed to win a title, the team would be nowhere near as good as his City team(s).
And the answer is no for the reasons I stated. We wouldn't have backed pep all the way like they have at city.
Everywhere he goes, he got whatever he wanted. Wouldn't have been the case at United. You ask for grealish and you get VDB.
City just scrapped 4th, joint on points ahead of LVG’s United when he took over @Spaghetti
Is that true? I’m sure Pep has missed out on plenty these past years right?
I very highly doubt it, and I'm amazed at the unanimity of 'yes's this question has generated. It's as if people still don't get why we're shite.
City created the infrastructure for him, got sporting directors in place who shared his vision, bought players who fit his system, and shifted players on ruthlessly when they didn't. All of those things require a singularity of focus off the pitch, a belief in what the club is doing, and a coherent plan on how to achieve it.
Pep is an excellent manager, but everything about how we've been off the pitch since Ferguson retired would have set him up to fail. We've never seen anything from Pep to suggest he could be the old style British manger with complete oversight for football operations that our club requires.
City created the infrastructure for him, got sporting directors in place who shared his vision, bought players who fit his system, and shifted players on ruthlessly when they didn't. All of those things require a singularity of focus off the pitch, a belief in what the club is doing, and a coherent plan on how to achieve it.
Pep is an excellent manager, but everything about how we've been off the pitch since Ferguson retired would have set him up to fail. We've never seen anything from Pep to suggest he could be the old style British manger with complete oversight for football operations that our club requires.
Still don't know why Fergie ever thought Moyes should be the chosen one to this day
United won Fred, Maguire, and Sanchez from City. Chelse did the same with Jorginho. The Napoli dude screwed him over on multiple occasions.
We would
Yes. Why? Because it didnt take all that money to win a league. It took some of the money, then after they won the league a lot more money was spent
Meanwhile ours was all spent to try and get up there and never managing it.
So I think the same would have happened at United. Pep builds a team to win the league then spends any money thats made available to him not neccissarily improving the title winning team and other teams improve more than his title winning team did.
Meanwhile ours was all spent to try and get up there and never managing it.
So I think the same would have happened at United. Pep builds a team to win the league then spends any money thats made available to him not neccissarily improving the title winning team and other teams improve more than his title winning team did.
No, because he's never won anything or been anywhere without the best group of players by a country mile. He's the luckiest manager in history. If Luis Enrique fell out of the Barca youths first we'd be talking about how he's such a great coach. He simply cheerleads talented players to beat inferior players. Nothing more.
So are we really having a «hail Pep» thread in the Manchester United forum?
Not even bother to put it in the general football forum?
Good to see so many jumping in here to give their praise.....
Not even bother to put it in the general football forum?
Good to see so many jumping in here to give their praise.....
City spent £130mil on 3 fullbacks in one window.
That simply isn't happening at United. I'm not claiming United can't do that, but United certainly won't do that.
Those saying we wouldn't have backed him are conveniently forgetting we have bought the most expensive forward, midfielder and defender ever in the PL in the last few years...
Off course he would've won at least one title
Off course he would've won at least one title
Yup.
+£57m on Laporte who he slapped at left back occasionally on top of that.
I think so, especially if he came straight after SAF.
I don't think so. He would have left by 2019, because the club would not sanction the 250M he needs in one summer to fix things and because the club structure is so frustrating.
Yes, we have spent 700M. But many of them have been over different summers and many of them , because we got absolutely rinsed in the market. Our club structure and our scouts and negotiations are all so bad, that we overpay on almost every deal.
Yes, we have spent 700M. But many of them have been over different summers and many of them , because we got absolutely rinsed in the market. Our club structure and our scouts and negotiations are all so bad, that we overpay on almost every deal.
We have a 40m midfielder who barely plays. And a 20m teenager with 10 minutes to his name.
United aren't paupers by any means.
People underestimate the core of players Pep had at his disposal when he arrived. I get that some of these were approaching the end of their careers, but still: Kompany, Fernandinho, Toure, Silva, De Bryune, Silva, Sterling and Aguero is a very good core. Considering how mediocre his rivals were back then(2013 to 2017 was the dark era of the PL, imo), City really just needed to tweak the defense a bit before comfortably being the best team in the PL again.
Compare that to our core back then: DDG, Smalling, Blind, Shaw(post leg break), Herrera and just the raw potential of Rashford and Martial. Rooney was already way past it and Mata's decline was also evident.
It's safe to say that Pep never would have taken the job in the first place. And if he for some mad reason had accepted it, then he would have demanded way more money to be spent.
Compare that to our core back then: DDG, Smalling, Blind, Shaw(post leg break), Herrera and just the raw potential of Rashford and Martial. Rooney was already way past it and Mata's decline was also evident.
It's safe to say that Pep never would have taken the job in the first place. And if he for some mad reason had accepted it, then he would have demanded way more money to be spent.
Last edited:
If we're gonna use diallo as a stick to beat with, I feel I have to mention the combine cost of our starting front three today is £15mil
Probably not. He’s a better manager than Ole, obviously. But the main bottle neck for us is that while the Glazers are in charge we’re never going to match the spending of oil rich clubs like City, Chelsea and Liverpool despite generating more revenue which is always going to make it difficult to compete. And the referees don’t help either
United and City were separated by goal difference when Guardiola got the job there.
He would have won the league given the same budget, probably even squad, as Mourinho (who spent 150 million and a Zlatan that summer and managed to score 5 more goals than the previous season). In the second season if not the first - Chelsea were on fire then.
He would have won the league given the same budget, probably even squad, as Mourinho (who spent 150 million and a Zlatan that summer and managed to score 5 more goals than the previous season). In the second season if not the first - Chelsea were on fire then.
Well, no. Your squad wasn't even close to City's when he took over no matter what the 17/18 table might say. And since he took over city I'd have to say I've been rather disappointed untill the latter part of this season, this is the only time I've actually been worried about facing them in the CL.
Had he taken over you guys at that time he would have to do the same process of swapping out most of the squad that Ole is trying to do.
Had he taken over you guys at that time he would have to do the same process of swapping out most of the squad that Ole is trying to do.
For Pep I don’t think we had the base of players that could initially make his style of play look good. So in the 1-2 years where it would look very boring and we’d be 4-6 the ex United lot on TV would be moaning every week and fans would lose patience very quickly. And it’s likely he’d get sack before he’d have time to buy the players to make the style look good and start winning.
IMO asking about the wrong manager. A better post would be
‘if Ed didn’t ruin it with “it’s like Disneyland for adults “ and pitched United properly would we have won titles with Klopp.’
Answer= Yes.
he’d get time because people would notice the style is very entertaining even with rubbish players and within a few years we’d be winning leagues.
IMO asking about the wrong manager. A better post would be
‘if Ed didn’t ruin it with “it’s like Disneyland for adults “ and pitched United properly would we have won titles with Klopp.’
Answer= Yes.
he’d get time because people would notice the style is very entertaining even with rubbish players and within a few years we’d be winning leagues.
No. He relies on constant big investment something this club has surley lacked in comparison to City and Bayern. A club with limitless fund and german royalty. I don't like him but Klopp's success with Liverpool and Borussia is far more impressive
It depends. If he took over SAF then yes. There was enough there for him to buy the players he needs whilst using a bit of what SAF had left him even if the players were ageing.
However, If Pep had come after Mourinho (or even after LVg) then I'd say no depending on how much patience and support our fans would decide to bring.
By the time of Mourinho and LVG our squad was ruined to pieces and the players that look good or decent now were not doing it back then. Pep would have had to buy near an almost full squad whilst managing one of the worst squads possible in relation to his tactics and quality (Fellaini, Lukaku, Smalling, De Gea, Sanchez, inverted fullbacks like Valencia and Young just to name a few).
He wouldnt have won a title in the first 2 years because of the whole first team nearly being a gap. By the third year he has a chance and that's relative to how many players Woodward would have bought him and if he purely listened to Pep or bought the players his crew wanted in the transfer market.
I'd say by the 3rd but most likely 4th year Pep would have won a title taking over Mourinho/LVG. By that time it's highly dependent on how much support our fanbase wants to give and how much patience they have. He would have more patience given because of his legendary status, but not winning the title in his 2nd season or even his third after spending so much to reshuffle the squad would make alot of the fans that wanted him to turn around and be uneasy because he isnt a winner as they would highlight him not reaching a bit of expectations like Bayern's wanting a CL with him too. Some would call for his head and debate for either a german manager like Marco Rose or Nagelsmann or a manager that dominated the premier league like Pochettino or Brendan Rodgers.
However, If Pep had come after Mourinho (or even after LVg) then I'd say no depending on how much patience and support our fans would decide to bring.
By the time of Mourinho and LVG our squad was ruined to pieces and the players that look good or decent now were not doing it back then. Pep would have had to buy near an almost full squad whilst managing one of the worst squads possible in relation to his tactics and quality (Fellaini, Lukaku, Smalling, De Gea, Sanchez, inverted fullbacks like Valencia and Young just to name a few).
He wouldnt have won a title in the first 2 years because of the whole first team nearly being a gap. By the third year he has a chance and that's relative to how many players Woodward would have bought him and if he purely listened to Pep or bought the players his crew wanted in the transfer market.
I'd say by the 3rd but most likely 4th year Pep would have won a title taking over Mourinho/LVG. By that time it's highly dependent on how much support our fanbase wants to give and how much patience they have. He would have more patience given because of his legendary status, but not winning the title in his 2nd season or even his third after spending so much to reshuffle the squad would make alot of the fans that wanted him to turn around and be uneasy because he isnt a winner as they would highlight him not reaching a bit of expectations like Bayern's wanting a CL with him too. Some would call for his head and debate for either a german manager like Marco Rose or Nagelsmann or a manager that dominated the premier league like Pochettino or Brendan Rodgers.
Last edited:
Think this is it really.
A better question is whether the club would have been prepared to spend the funds for pep to succeed (unless comes in straight after SAF). I personally don't think so.
Ed would have given him everything he wanted. He gave LVG loads of money too and even for Jose and Ole. He certainly in one of the best coaches and certainly the best right now.
If pep cant do it. You expect ole can?
If you expect ole to finally win the league. Pep will surpass it same budget same time same fund.
If you expect ole to finally win the league. Pep will surpass it same budget same time same fund.
Yes. He's miles better than anyone who has managed us post SAF and the best of this era.
Yeah, surely.
Exactly. We are hardly a "value" club. Only United fans like to pretend we don't spend big. Were one of the biggest spending clubs on the planet. 130 million of AWB and Maguire. Nearly 50 on James and VDB. Let's not even get into our spending in the previous 6 years.We win 4-0, the wah wahs have nothing to whine about.
Yet here we are.
Yet here we are.
Hard to say.
He is not the type that has a team punching above its weight. Our team was broken. It's not like Pep's signings all working out Okay. From our position back then, it would mean spending much more than what he had spent at City.
He is not the type that has a team punching above its weight. Our team was broken. It's not like Pep's signings all working out Okay. From our position back then, it would mean spending much more than what he had spent at City.
100% he would.
Agreed. Maybe we would win 1.
Recruitment is different. I wonder what the net spend figures are.
Now I know how net spend is misinterpreted but reality is if we spend 80m on Lukaku, sell him and then buy Maguire for 80m...not like 160m came out of the glazers is it?
I mean the current city defense has what 8 players on whom 40-60m pounds has been spent?
To me it feels like city have spent more. Maybe I'm wrong.