Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[Camara]

I would still say, and? Isn't that the point? Why would people in football who live it and breathe it and live off it choose randomly to romanticize one thing over the other? Football is not a business, a big part of it is of course but it would never have billions of fans world wise if it was just that. Anything that captures the attention and emotions of billions has some sort of emotional investment to it, i.e: romance. Millions support us because of the romance of the Busby babes and the romance of our comebacks and playing style in general. Real Madrid have a romance to them as do Cruyff's Netherlands or the great Brazil teams. You are talking about the essence of the game that makes it the most popular in the world. If someone can generate such strong feelings in so many people that inspires them to try and copy it, isn't that a very rare value indeed?

I was not making a judgement, I was just saying what I remember from that time.

And that isn't related to what you were saying from what I understood, you were asking why did the rich owners wanted to base it off him/his style.
I assumed you were talking about how he was successful but apparently you're saying he was flashy and that was the main thing.
I say the same, he was flashy and that's why I said romanticism.
But romanticism doesn't always mean good. There are several managers that are terrible and get thrashed at every job but the media still defend them just because they try to play a certain style.

Guardiola had both style and success but he wasn't the only one. It was the myth creation that made it appear he was unique and above everything else.
Mourinho had the same thing, style and success. And when Inter beat Barça in 2010 what happened? Pep, Xavi, and a huge number of people/media/fans threw a major tantrum on how it was unfair and how Inter didn't play football and all that.
It had been decided by someone/the masses/whatever that Guardiola/Barça/Messi/everything related was good and that Mourinho and later things associated with him or anti-Barça (like Real or Ronaldo) were bad.
I jokingly refer to Mourinho and Ronaldo as part of the Pantheon of Evil, it became an honourable thing to insult them and to belittle them at this time and this remains to this day.
On the reverse Guardiola (and Messi) was the patron saint of football and its defender.
This was the (general) public perception and club owners also followed this or took it into account.

 

[Waynne]

He’s not got a magic wand but he has a clear system that has proven to be successful not only in his teams but when you see the footprints in teams like Kompany’s Burnley and Arteta’s Arsenal. My guess is that he will need some years to establish his footprints on Yeovil Town similar to how Klopp had to slowly but steadily replaced his squad till he was able to find a core that would implement his ideas on the pitch. Managers are disadvantaged because no matter how brilliant their ideas are someone else will need to carry them out.

Hard to disagree with you on that.

 

[Theonas]

I was not making a judgement, I was just saying what I remember from that time.

And that isn't related to what you were saying from what I understood, you were asking why did the rich owners wanted to base it off him/his style.
I assumed you were talking about how he was successful but apparently you're saying he was flashy and that was the main thing.
I say the same, he was flashy and that's why I said romanticism.
But romanticism doesn't always mean good. There are several managers that are terrible and get thrashed at every job but the media still defend them just because they try to play a certain style.

Guardiola had both style and success but he wasn't the only one. It was the myth creation that made it appear he was unique and above everything else.
Mourinho had the same thing, style and success. And when Inter beat Barça in 2010 what happened? Pep, Xavi, and a huge number of people/media/fans threw a major tantrum on how it was unfair and how Inter didn't play football and all that.
It had been decided by someone/the masses/whatever that Guardiola/Barça/Messi/everything related was good and that Mourinho and later things associated with him or anti-Barça (like Real or Ronaldo) were bad.
I jokingly refer to Mourinho and Ronaldo as part of the Pantheon of Evil, it became an honourable thing to insult them and to belittle them at this time and this remains to this day.
On the reverse Guardiola (and Messi) was the patron saint of football and its defender.
This was the (general) public perception and club owners also followed this or took it into account.

But that's exactly the point, who is the judge if not the masses? We are talking about something that's sole purposes for the masses is entertainment and inspiration. Isn't what said masses decide, ultimately what is relevant? Mourinho's style simply could not be sustained when he was at clubs with ego and desire to express themselves. He found his niche in hard working footballers and at clubs that were underdogs or were in an underdog situation like Real were in his first two years. Once a club wanted to play with personality and authority befitting of their stature, he struggled. He himself thrived on the role of the antagonist, the anti-purist. Isn't that by definition what we're talking about?

Kids idolise the expression and creativity of football when played at parks and playground all over the world. Once it becomes competitive, there is an element of pragmatism to achieve success. This is generally accepted as part of the trade but it still means that once in a generation or whenever, when someone or a team can marry that offence minded and creative spirit with success, they get idolised by the masses. Hell they don't even have to succeed like Brazil 1982 or the famous Dutch teams. It's like saying it's only people who consume food decide what food is tastiest, who else is qualified?

 

[Orion.]

He creates silly systems to distract from the fact his teams just should win by default, and the daft fecker has got himself stuck in Manchester by realising that it’s likely whoever his successor is will win just as much with that squad.

Good manager perhaps, but Bayern won more pre/post Pep, City should have won everything he has and likely even more Champions League’s in his time there.

Klopp and Pochettino are the two standout coaches of the past decade in the Premier League, in terms of overachieving - Poch’s work At Southampton was also exceptional - and maximising their player’s potential. The football their teams play is far more enjoyable too.

 

[marktan]

If Klopp had a bit more of a budget to actually rotate some of his front 3, it's very likely he would have 3 league titles and Guardiola 2 less. He finished a point behind City twice, either playing Mane/Salah/Firmino with little rotation one year, and Mane/Salah/Jota with little rotation the other until they got Diaz in January.

I find what Klopp did with Liverpool on a low budget and from inheriting a far worse squad than Pep inherited to be more impressive.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

If Klopp had a bit more of a budget to actually rotate some of his front 3, it's very likely he would have 3 league titles and Guardiola 2 less. He finished a point behind City twice, either playing Mane/Salah/Firmino with little rotation one year, and Mane/Salah/Jota with little rotation the other until they got Diaz in January.

I find what Klopp did with Liverpool on a low budget and from inheriting a far worse squad than Pep inherited to be more impressive.

I think Klopp is a fine manager, but his down seasons at Liverpool, they're nowhere near the title race and scrapping for top 4. At least when Pep's out of a title race, he's still comfortably getting top 4.

Also, I think you can make a strong argument Liverpool's team was not clearly weaker than City's until this past season. I would have picked Liverpool's XI over City's XI for most seasons.

 

[marktan]

I think Klopp is a fine manager, but his down seasons at Liverpool, they're nowhere near the title race and scrapping for top 4. At least when Pep's out of a title race, he's still comfortably getting top 4.

Also, I think you can make a strong argument Liverpool's team was not clearly weaker than City's until this past season. I would have picked Liverpool's XI over City's XI for most seasons.

The down seasons are due to a lack of spending. Needed a CB when Van Djik was out.. signed no one. Relying on a past it Henderson and Fabinho.. signed no midfielders. City can blow £50m on Kalvin Phillips and then forget he even plays for them.

I agree on Liverpool's first team being as good or better than City's, but City had the clear advantage with their squad - especially the attackers. Liverpool would play the same front 3 on the weekend and then in the CL, Pep would almost always change both the wide forwards between the midweek and the weekend. Last season only when they signed Diaz in January for some rotation did they consistently start winning games.

 

[erikcred]

I never used the word fun, that is subjective. The aim was to build a style that ensures consistent dominance and authority through controlling space and possession with potency. The people in charge of the biggest clubs identified this as the best way to consistently compete and win major trophies and he was/is the best at implementing that. By that measure, he did succeed. It is why they and City and many others were happy to overlook any current success with Heynckes and Pelligrini in exchange for a playing style that will ensure continuous succuess. Many managers could extract the best out of a team for one or two seasons like Mourinho, Conte, Ancelotti and few others but only he could build a team that can have continuous success because what he implements is sustainable. Fun or not is purely subjective on each individual’s sensibilities and can’t really be discussed or debated.

Wait, Bayern's last 7 titles were because of Pep? At the same time, his titles have nothing to do with Heynckes either?

With or without Pep, Bayern already had developed a style that ensures consistent dominance and authority. Just buy the best players from your competitors. For instance, Pep joined the treble winners and poached Dortmund's best player right away. And just to be sure, also got Lewandowski a couple seasons later.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

You missed the point.
It's a selective argument. It's built by simply pretending that their abysmal league season never happened. Which is what you all are doing with Barcelona.


Again: you keep saying this like it's a good thing. It isn't. Barcelona finished the league with 67 points. That is the 5th worst point tally that Barcelona or Real Madrid have gotten in the 21st century. 41 out of 46. They finished 10 points behind Villareal. It is shit.

Trying to pass this off as good, as if Barcelona "did their job by qualifying for the CL", is simply not serious.

The way you're arguing in this thread is just typical skewed perspective and inability to judge teams in a wider, more accurate context that some fans of the most successful teams fall into. especially from the Spanish big two. A Barca/Real team (post Bosman) that their supporters are calling shit/abysmal, is inevitably accurately translated as a good, but flawed team with a lot of talent; always only a smal amount of new signings or players improving/hitting top form away from getting to the top again . One that just isn't one of their great/legendary ones, or a league winner. Underachieving compared to their squad level and aspirations? Sure, but c'mon what's the lowest either club has ever finished in the past 30 years? One or two seasons in 5th or 6th, still within qualification region to European football...in a good league, one that would be among the best in Europe even if South America stopped selling you all their best talent. This 2007-08 season in question also during one of the best times for domestic talent in Spanish football history where almost all of them are playing in their own league. But finishing 3rd and behind Villareal is the sign of being a bad team?

These narratives of rubbish teams and managers coming into really bad situations that involve a great deal of work to solve are painfully manufactured by the big Spanish duo. in the 7 times of a 3rd-6th place finish for Real Madrid since 95-96 they've only failed to instantly regain their customary top 2 spot (winning the league at least half of the time) once. A lot of these seasons where they are playing at such a supposedly bad level, they are winning or going deep in tournaments at the same time.

For Barca: 6 3rd to 6th place finishes since 95-96. only failing to regain the top-2 spot right away twice, with the 4th,4th,6th run of the early '00s. Where, amazingly enough, during this disastrous period of garbage football...they were getting to uefa cup and Champions League semi-finals and quarter-finals. Boring truth is there hasn't been a genuinely bad team from either of these clubs since Bosman.

Turning around the "abysmal" 2007-08 season into one where Barcelona could quickly be considered an excellent league winning side, or that could go deep in Europe and end up being called a great team was no unique task for Pep. It was business as usual to do that. Where he does deserve distinct credit is in the quick turnaround being into not just a typical elite/great Real/Barca side again, but an all-time great one while being very tactically influential.

 

[Mr.Fantastic]

Yes he has the best squad because he made them the best. Bayern have got Neuer, Upemecano, De Ligt, Hernandez, Davies, Kimmich, Coman, Musiala, Muller, Sane, Gnarbry, Mane, etc. I think Bayern is seriously underachieving with all the players they have.

Permit me to do a starting XI from the two squads:

Neuer
*Kimmich Stones Dias Davies
Rodri
De Bruyne Musiala
Coman Haaland Sane​

*Walker is a good option there maybe when the game is wearing out.
*I would have preferred Kimmich to sit deep in midfield with Rodri but how do you take out De Bruyne or Musiala?

Your characterization applies to any winning team out there. Zidane also made RM the best. As such, he has the best squad because he invested shit ton of cash in quality players. As for Bayern. I don`t think they are underachieving. Their squad is substantially weaker than before, add to that institutional problems.

p.s: The fact that you have left out Silva is criminal. I would have only used Davies and Kimmich.

 

[11101]

The starting lineup that won Barcelona the CL in 2006 was Valdés, Oleguer, van Brockhorst, Puyol, Marquez, Deco, Edmilson, van Bommel, Guily, Eto'o, and Ronaldinho. That is quite clearly not the team that Guardiola managed to a sextuple, so whether Barcelona won the CL in 2006 tells us nothing about whether he 'had it easy' when he took over.

What he did with Barcelona is akin to what SAF did with the class of 92. Both managers had the foresight to use academy players to create a team and were somewhat fortunate it worked out as well as it did.

Both are impressive achievements but what again elevates Ferguson (and others like Shankly) is that he created the infrastructure that found those players. Guardiola was right place right time.

 

[fps]

Has nothing to do with money, has to do with structure and decision making. For all of the credit Pep gets (and he deserves it all), people forget that City have had an elite transfer structure as well as having the best academy in the world. THAT's where the money spent has paid dividends. It's not just that they have an unlimited checkbook, it's that they are still operated the proper way. They don't over pay for players, they strike and make deals quickly and effortlessly, and they sell players when many think they shouldn't. It's basically the antithesis of what we have done for the past decade: we get taken to the cleaners routinely on fees, are brutally inefficient in how we do business, hardly ever get a decent fee for a sale because we hold onto players for far too long, and have let the infrastructure of the club slowly rot for 15 years.

People can say Pep would have won leagues here but I'm not so sure. Maybe we get 1, but there's a reason Pep has only gone to clubs with elite structure from the top down, because he knows certain places would just hamstring him and limit the actual impact he can make

Solid.

 

[fps]

Pep would have won 2-3 leagues here with the same money. He would have got rid of the players who couldn't play football, and got in ball-players. In a year, his team would have been the exact same style as every team he manages.

City just won the CL final with a defensive line of Akanki, Stones, Ake and Dias. Dias is top-class but Ake came from Bournemouth, we could have signed him, Stones was a figure of fun for some, Akanji was sometimes seen as a weak link for Dortmund in the 'farmers league' of Bundesliga. It's a bit depressing to think what we would have achieved here, and how many of our players would be better coached to become better players. He wouldn't have won every league against Abu Dhabi money, but he would have made his mark far more than any manager since Ferguson.

Pep also probably would have won the league more often than Klopp has at Liverpool, I think with eight years to work with he would have won at least two titles, without competing against a version of himself at City. The standard would be lower to win it and he would still have had Michael Edwards to pick out the gems, Liverpool have had some really good players play for them last 6 or 7 years. Would he have got to 3 CL finals, I'm not so sure, Klopp's football suits two-legged cup competitions, whereas Guardiola's suits the relentless nature of a league.

Interesting. How much would Pep have tolerated our antiquated set-up? He would certainly have had the players' respect, and too many of them have downed tools for too long.

 

[Anders Agnalt]

No, he is not! He has been handed everything on a silver platter and whenever something needs to be built, he has switched clubs. He took over Barcelona's best XI, he took over Bayern at their peak, and he took over City's best-ever squad.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Klopp is also an excellent manager, and he manages clubs with less resource and have achieved success. It is almost impossible to measure "the" greatest manager as the resource available to managers are not the same. Pep no doubt is one of the greatest but it won't make Klopp a lesser manager.

 

[erikcred]

Guardiola is in the conversation because he is doing something that Fergie and Rinus Michels couldn't: winning many trophies AND changing football. Fergie was absolutely brilliant at doing the former but didn't change how football was played. Michels changed football but didn't win many trophies. Guardiola is probably the only manager who has won over 20 big trophies AND changed football. This doesn't make him *the* greatest, but there are good reasons to think he's up there with the very best.

What do you mean by this? When we hear Rinus Michels, we think total football. What is the change in football that you associate with Pep?

 

[Dancfc]

Because his methods require very specific players.

So do Sarri's, De Zerbi's etc and they did allright having to do it in lesser environments.

Not sure why Pep couldn't have done that if he had to.

 

[Stacks]

I think he is the greatest coach for sure. He has consistently delivered success whereever he's been.

City had quite a tough run in the Champion's League this year but got through it all.

He also extremely selective in joining front runners. Taking the Bayern job is a b1tch move and everyone has success there. 2 different managers had won with City in recent years

City have spent £2bn since the takeover in 2008. Over £1bn of that has come under Pep's tenure specifically.

That figure includes money they received from sale of players and if you look at our own net spend and that of a couple other clubs, it’s obvious that they have not done anything that was out of each for everybody. In terms of net spend I think we have spent about double the amount they have spent meaning that they have invested new money into their squad in a manner that is being done in the league. Our squads are night and day in comparison by the way.

As of April 2023.
Jurgen Klopp at Liverpool
Five Biggest Purchases

1. Virgil van Dijk – £76.2milion
2. Darwin Nunez – £67.5million
2. Alisson – £56.3million
3. Naby Keita – £54million
4. Fabinho – £40.5million

Five Biggest Sales

1. Phillipe Coutinho – £121.5million
2. Sadio Mane – £28.8million
3. Christian Benteke – £28.1million
4. Mamadou Sakho – £25.4million
5. Danny Ings – £22.6million

Total Spent: £680.06million
Total Sold: £435.74million

Total Net Spend: £244.68million

Jurgen Klopp greets Sadio Mane after Liverpool's Premier League match with West Ham United, Anfield, Liverpool, March 2022

READ: Sadio Mane, beware: 9 players that flopped after leaving Jurgen Klopp

Pep Guardiola at Man City
Five Biggest Purchases

1. Jack Grealish – £105.8million
2. Ruben Dias – £61.2million
3. Riyad Mahrez – £61million
4. Joao Cancelo – £58.5million
5. Aymeric Laporte – £58.5million

Five Biggest Sales

1. Leroy Sane – £54million
2. Raheem Sterling – £50.9million
3. Ferran Torres – £49.5million
4. Gabriel Jesus – £47million
5. Danilo – £33.3million

Total Spent: £1.18billion
Total Sold: £518.2million

Total Net Spend: £661.8million

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The way you're arguing in this thread is just typical skewed perspective and inability to judge teams in a wider, more accurate context that some fans of the most successful teams fall into. especially from the Spanish big two. A Barca/Real team (post Bosman) that their supporters are calling shit/abysmal, is inevitably accurately translated as a good, but flawed team with a lot of talent; always only a smal amount of new signings or players improving/hitting top form away from getting to the top again . One that just isn't one of their great/legendary ones, or a league winner. Underachieving compared to their squad level and aspirations? Sure, but c'mon what's the lowest either club has ever finished in the past 30 years? One or two seasons in 5th or 6th, still within qualification region to European football...in a good league, one that would be among the best in Europe even if South America stopped selling you all their best talent. This 2007-08 season in question also during one of the best times for domestic talent in Spanish football history where almost all of them are playing in their own league.

You seem to be arguing against a strawman here. Neither me nor other posters think Barcelona was a shit team. We think Barcelona had a shit season.

It is quite easy to argue that Barcelona had a good team (or at least players) all you have to do is point out that many of the players Pep used were there, and that Messi was already placing highly in Balon d'Or votings.

What is not so easy is to try and pretend like a bad season is actually good. It is also pointless.

Context is important. But you are opening up context to a degree where it is no longer useful. Big teams have gotten relegated in the past. Does that mean that Chelsea had a good season because they didn't get relegated? Deportivo La Coruña, a Liga champion, just failed to get promoted from the 3rd division. If we use that as a standard, then Barcelona getting relegated to the 2nd division would be merely "not ideal." Does this wide context tell us anything useful? No, it does not.

in the 7 times of a 3rd-6th place finish for Real Madrid since 95-96 they've only failed to instantly regain their customary top 2 spot (winning the league at least half of the time) once. A lot of these seasons where they are playing at such a supposedly bad level, they are winning or going deep in tournaments at the same time....
...It was business as usual to do that....

Seems to me that evaluating this via league placement is not the best 'context', as your placement would be influenced by the performance of teams around you. Since 96/97, the average swing in points from one season to the next is 8.8 ± - 5.3 for Real Madrid and 7.4 ± 5.3 for Barcelona. Barcelona improved 20 points after appoint Guardiola. This is, in fact, the largest change, in either direction, for either club, in this time period. So, not business as usual, but in fact the biggest outlier.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Taking the Bayern job is a b1tch move and everyone has success there.

Yeah, that's why we're on our fifth head coach in seven seasons past Pep, not counting caretakers, of whom two were fired for being shite (most notably Ancelotti, who, to some here, is a tier above Pep ) and one for daring to look like he was turning shite.
Having resources and a theoretically good squad does not automatically guarantee success, just look at PSG, Chelsea, or fecking Manchester United.

 

[erikcred]

He also extremely selective in joining front runners. Taking the Bayern job is a b1tch move and everyone has success there. 2 different managers had won with City in recent years


As of April 2023.
Jurgen Klopp at Liverpool
Five Biggest Purchases

1. Virgil van Dijk – £76.2milion
2. Darwin Nunez – £67.5million
2. Alisson – £56.3million
3. Naby Keita – £54million
4. Fabinho – £40.5million

Five Biggest Sales

1. Phillipe Coutinho – £121.5million
2. Sadio Mane – £28.8million
3. Christian Benteke – £28.1million
4. Mamadou Sakho – £25.4million
5. Danny Ings – £22.6million

Total Spent: £680.06million
Total Sold: £435.74million

Total Net Spend: £244.68million

Jurgen Klopp greets Sadio Mane after Liverpool's Premier League match with West Ham United, Anfield, Liverpool, March 2022

READ: Sadio Mane, beware: 9 players that flopped after leaving Jurgen Klopp

Pep Guardiola at Man City
Five Biggest Purchases

1. Jack Grealish – £105.8million
2. Ruben Dias – £61.2million
3. Riyad Mahrez – £61million
4. Joao Cancelo – £58.5million
5. Aymeric Laporte – £58.5million

Five Biggest Sales

1. Leroy Sane – £54million
2. Raheem Sterling – £50.9million
3. Ferran Torres – £49.5million
4. Gabriel Jesus – £47million
5. Danilo – £33.3million

Total Spent: £1.18billion
Total Sold: £518.2million

Total Net Spend: £661.8million

Ferran Torres was bought the year before for around 20m. So, his value evidently doubled over the course of the year he spent at City while barely starting and then being injured. Makes complete sense.

 

[Stacks]

Yeah, that's why we're on our fifth head coach in seven seasons past Pep, not counting caretakers, of whom two were fired for being shite (most notably Ancelotti, who, to some here, is a tier above Pep ) and one for daring to look like he was turning shite.
Having resources and a theoretically good squad does not automatically guarantee success, just look at PSG, Chelsea, or fecking Manchester United.

You've won the league every year right?

 

[Stacks]

Ferran Torres was bought the year before for around 20m. So, his value evidently doubled over the course of the year he spent at City while barely starting and then being injured. Makes complete sense.

A downward trending Sterling was sold for more than they paid for him

 

[Care_de_Bobo]

So do Sarri's, De Zerbi's etc and they did allright having to do it in lesser environments.

Not sure why Pep couldn't have done that if he had to.

Maybe he could, but he would have to prove it first. We know Ferguson or Mourinho could win with a total underdog because we actually witnessed it.

Pep can take the easy route for his whole career and that's fine, but there will always be that question mark over him until he proves he doesn't need either the greatest player of all time or unlimited funds to be successful. Ferguson competed with Chelsea and City spending crazy amounts and still came out on top as well as breaking up the Old Firm duopoly with Aberdeen.

Would anybody be surprised if in a few years Pep managed a stacked France side or Brazil with a peak Endrick and led them to World Cup glory? Not really. Would it prove anything we don't already know? Again, no.

 

[Greyfog]

Ferran Torres was bought the year before for around 20m. So, his value evidently doubled over the course of the year he spent at City while barely starting and then being injured. Makes complete sense.

He was starting to look good for City and had a few decent games for Spain shortly before Barca's bid and he asked to leave. Given his age and the potential didn't surprise me they got that much for him.

 

[Greyfog]

Maybe he could, but he would have to prove it first. We know Ferguson or Mourinho could win with a total underdog because we actually witnessed it.

Pep can take the easy route for his whole career and that's fine, but there will always be that question mark over him until he proves he doesn't need either the greatest player of all time or unlimited funds to be successful. Ferguson competed with Chelsea and City spending crazy amounts and still came out on top as well as breaking up the Old Firm duopoly with Aberdeen.

Would anybody be surprised if in a few years Pep managed a stacked France side or Brazil with a peak Endrick and led them to World Cup glory? Not really. Would it prove anything we don't already know? Again, no.

Posts like this are so funny. He doesn't need to prove anything. If he leaves City in 2025, Roma or Spurs will not even dream of inquiring if he will be interested in the project.
Imo he failed in Bayern but his stock is even higher now than it was after he left Barca.
I think the Pep at Barca and Bayern might have struggled with a mid table team. But this Pep, especially after this season of playing 4 CBs, given up possession in some big games, will do quite well with a mid table side

 

[Partridge]

i'd say no. He has never done what fergie did, and actually build a squad without infinite money.

 

[GhastlyHun]

You've won the league every year right?

Yes, but that was not normal before Pep either, and it has not been enough to just win without crushing the opposition since.

 

[Dancfc]

Maybe he could, but he would have to prove it first. We know Ferguson or Mourinho could win with a total underdog because we actually witnessed it.

Pep can take the easy route for his whole career and that's fine, but there will always be that question mark over him until he proves he doesn't need either the greatest player of all time or unlimited funds to be successful. Ferguson competed with Chelsea and City spending crazy amounts and still came out on top as well as breaking up the Old Firm duopoly with Aberdeen.

Would anybody be surprised if in a few years Pep managed a stacked France side or Brazil with a peak Endrick and led them to World Cup glory? Not really. Would it prove anything we don't already know? Again, no.

Even if hypothetically he bombed at a "lesser" club it still shouldn't tarnish his overall legacy. Carlo underwhelmed at Napoli and Everton yet people still rate him.

And what would be the metrics of success if he did take on a job like that? Overachieve scaled for resources even if he doesn't win anything? Pochettino done that at two clubs and got branded a bottler because he didn't stretch that one more step further. Win the title against all odds? Ranieri did that and no one rates him in the slightest.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

So do Sarri's, De Zerbi's etc and they did allright having to do it in lesser environments.

Not sure why Pep couldn't have done that if he had to.

Yep, it’s crazy to think a coach as good as Guardiola couldn’t take a team 10th in the league and make them 6th, it’s the management equivalent of wanting Messi to play for Stoke to ‘prove’ himself. Guardiola or Messi don’t need to do that, their ability is as clear as day. It is a ridiculous hypothetical that will never happen.

 

[Bearded One]

He creates silly systems to distract from the fact his teams just should win by default, and the daft fecker has got himself stuck in Manchester by realising that it’s likely whoever his successor is will win just as much with that squad.

Good manager perhaps, but Bayern won more pre/post Pep, City should have won everything he has and likely even more Champions League’s in his time there.

Klopp and Pochettino are the two standout coaches of the past decade in the Premier League, in terms of overachieving - Poch’s work At Southampton was also exceptional - and maximising their player’s potential. The football their teams play is far more enjoyable too.

Bayern will definitely win more pre and post Pep because he’s only spent a couple of years there. What we should be asking is have Flick, Ancelloti, Tuchel, Nagglesman and whoever else you are referencing sustained success at the top given that they too had access to similar resources that Pep had?

Poch’s work at Southampton and Tottenham gave us the sense that he’d be a monster of a manager should be get support of a world class team. How did it turn out at PSG? As for Klopp it’s easy to highlight his successes but when you also look at the things that didn’t work e.g. it took four years and clearing out most of the old team then 1 league in 8 years etc, you’d appreciate that they are all human after all.

 

[Bearded One]

If Klopp had a bit more of a budget to actually rotate some of his front 3, it's very likely he would have 3 league titles and Guardiola 2 less. He finished a point behind City twice, either playing Mane/Salah/Firmino with little rotation one year, and Mane/Salah/Jota with little rotation the other until they got Diaz in January.

I find what Klopp did with Liverpool on a low budget and from inheriting a far worse squad than Pep inherited to be more impressive.

Assumptions will never cut it. Many managers have gotten a definitive sentence the moment they stepped into bigger shoes with bigger players and resources because they wouldn’t have the luxury of building for 4 years.

The down seasons are due to a lack of spending. Needed a CB when Van Djik was out.. signed no one. Relying on a past it Henderson and Fabinho.. signed no midfielders. City can blow £50m on Kalvin Phillips and then forget he even plays for them.

I agree on Liverpool's first team being as good or better than City's, but City had the clear advantage with their squad - especially the attackers. Liverpool would play the same front 3 on the weekend and then in the CL, Pep would almost always change both the wide forwards between the midweek and the weekend. Last season only when they signed Diaz in January for some rotation did they consistently start winning games.

Liverpool have had Thiago Alcantara - UCL winner, Fabinho - one of the finest holders in the league both offensively and defensively. Not to mention Naby Keita who set the caf on fire the moment we learned that he was Liverpool bound from the Bundesliga. City are damn lucky that Rodri didn’t injure this season else they would probably win only one trophy. Rodri for me was their standout player and a number of Pep’s player underwhelm in their first seasons. Worth mentioning also that Liverpool have just finished on 5th with Salah, Nunez, Firminho, Diaz, Jota and Gakpo.

 

[Bearded One]

Your characterization applies to any winning team out there. Zidane also made RM the best. As such, he has the best squad because he invested shit ton of cash in quality players. As for Bayern. I don`t think they are underachieving. Their squad is substantially weaker than before, add to that institutional problems.

p.s: The fact that you have left out Silva is criminal. I would have only used Davies and Kimmich.

Yes Zizou made RM the best and they achieved this with the help of investments and the squad quality but the resources wasn’t necessarily all that there was. He took over from Benitez who already had RM in a serious mess. There were other managers that would underwhelm given the same situation so I wouldn’t hold that against him. What I hold against him however is that he hasn’t continued to test himself at the highest level after such a remarkable success.

I don’t want people saying the best managers should go to the Burnleys of this world - which you know is not realistic. Why not encourage them to get the required support they need and prove they are better than their contemporaries the exact same same you’d expect a star footballer to go to a bigger club to prove himself at the highest level and not the other way around.

It Pep had Mane, Musiala, Coman, Gnarbry, Sane, now Cancelo, Hernandez, etc not mentioning the names you called, you’d be screaming how much of a cheat he is. Bernardo is not exactly a winger and is much better in the middle but gets the nod because of his versatility and wotkrate. If it’s a wide position in question, even though he’s good, I’d rather do with the names I have there. And yes Bayern are underachieving considering the quality of players that they have in there.

Difference being one can afford to spend a few hunder million on benchwarmers whereas the other has to penny pinch.

Until Pep goes and manages a team on a budget or one that isn't blatantly cheating, he can't be considered as the greatest.

Would you also give Pep 4 years to clear deadwood and build his team if he was to go and mange a team with a smaller budget the way Klopp was able to do?

 

[Bearded One]

He also extremely selective in joining front runners. Taking the Bayern job is a b1tch move and everyone has success there. 2 different managers had won with City in recent years


As of April 2023.
Jurgen Klopp at Liverpool
Five Biggest Purchases

1. Virgil van Dijk – £76.2milion
2. Darwin Nunez – £67.5million
2. Alisson – £56.3million
3. Naby Keita – £54million
4. Fabinho – £40.5million

Five Biggest Sales

1. Phillipe Coutinho – £121.5million
2. Sadio Mane – £28.8million
3. Christian Benteke – £28.1million
4. Mamadou Sakho – £25.4million
5. Danny Ings – £22.6million

Total Spent: £680.06million
Total Sold: £435.74million

Total Net Spend: £244.68million

Jurgen Klopp greets Sadio Mane after Liverpool's Premier League match with West Ham United, Anfield, Liverpool, March 2022

READ: Sadio Mane, beware: 9 players that flopped after leaving Jurgen Klopp

Pep Guardiola at Man City
Five Biggest Purchases

1. Jack Grealish – £105.8million
2. Ruben Dias – £61.2million
3. Riyad Mahrez – £61million
4. Joao Cancelo – £58.5million
5. Aymeric Laporte – £58.5million

Five Biggest Sales

1. Leroy Sane – £54million
2. Raheem Sterling – £50.9million
3. Ferran Torres – £49.5million
4. Gabriel Jesus – £47million
5. Danilo – £33.3million

Total Spent: £1.18billion
Total Sold: £518.2million

Total Net Spend: £661.8million

The keyword for me is sustained success - being around and about the winning conversation continuously. Many managers have fluked title wins before. Every manager with a modicum of value is selective. For some they prefer an environment where they are afforded time to mould their teams rather than the “success fast” type clubs. Klopp was courted by Abrahamovic after he left Dortmund but he declined. Just saying that choosing a Liverpool type club and deciding to go on a project to making them great again was a more beautiful project to him and aligned to his personal goals. I do not hold it against him and neither will I hold it agianst the one who has 10 potential employers seeking his signature and him choosing the choicest of the deals. What I keep asking is that in all the clubs that Pep has managed, has there been anyone who’s managed there too? If yes, where are they now and why are they not being talked about in “best manager” conversations?

This tells me that maybe it’s not all about the clubs that he joined but also about the man himself. Klopp has actually done very well with what they have. Personally I’d rate Liverpool’s scouting system better than City’s. They have used money well of course but when you look at where both clubs are now, you can clearly see the difference - while one just finished fifth the other completed a treble. This is no slight on Liverpool because they have overachieved in giving City a good run for their money. The problem with placing one ahead of the other using a model of “if he did well with little he’ll sure be a beast if he’s given more” is that we have had some disappointments in the past. Also when managers have money to spend, their fate is much more put to the scrutiny in a maket where value has largely been lost therefore the benefit of more resources can also have a more fatal repercussion compared when things are tighter. Could City higher-ups be able to put up with 4 seasons of not achieving anything especially being done by a new manager in the league at some point? Klopp has two options in my opinion - he can demand for big support from FSG or feck off to a place where he can test his skills using the cream of the crop resources. Or he can continue to try to show his credentials where he currently is by sustaining wins at the top with that he currently has. It’s up to him because no one will place 1 of 8 ahead of 4 of 5 because he did very well with a smaller budget. Tuchel, Mourinho, Poch, Potter didn’t have easy rides when they got their dream moves. See if Jose was winning at Real, he’d probably still be there now winning more and more trophies. He’s not at Roma because he wants to prove anything to caf, he’s there because that’s the best deal available to him now. City are are definitely advantaged in this regard - finances - but they are not only up against Liverpool, we have the likes of Chelsea and United too.

Maybe he could, but he would have to prove it first. We know Ferguson or Mourinho could win with a total underdog because we actually witnessed it.

Pep can take the easy route for his whole career and that's fine, but there will always be that question mark over him until he proves he doesn't need either the greatest player of all time or unlimited funds to be successful. Ferguson competed with Chelsea and City spending crazy amounts and still came out on top as well as breaking up the Old Firm duopoly with Aberdeen.

Would anybody be surprised if in a few years Pep managed a stacked France side or Brazil with a peak Endrick and led them to World Cup glory? Not really. Would it prove anything we don't already know? Again, no.

If he is to prove it, what would convince you though? Doing it once? Ranieri did, Di Matteo did? How many years would you have him build his team or are you going to be judging him from season one? If he goes to a national team, which one of them would you have him go to? Germany, Costarica, Nigeria ot Spain?

 

[Care_de_Bobo]

Even if hypothetically he bombed at a "lesser" club it still shouldn't tarnish his overall legacy. Carlo underwhelmed at Napoli and Everton yet people still rate him.

And what would be the metrics of success if he did take on a job like that? Overachieve scaled for resources even if he doesn't win anything? Pochettino done that at two clubs and got branded a bottler because he didn't stretch that one more step further. Win the title against all odds? Ranieri did that and no one rates him in the slightest.

It wouldn't tarnish his legacy, but this thread is asking whether he's the single greatest manager of all time. Ancelotti is of course a great manager, but is rarely mentioned as the greatest ever because of his league record. Ferguson has his European record that people use against him.

If we're comparing them though it's important to note that Pep got the Barca gig in part due to being a former player, whereas Ferguson had to graft and even when he got the United job after proving himself at Aberdeen he still had a he'll of a job to do to get United back to the top. He didn't inherit a team with the likes of Eto'o, Henry, Messi, Xavi, Puyol, Iniesta, Yaya Toure and Dani Alves. It's an important distinction to make when we're comparing their credentials side by side. It's a bit like comparing a nepo baby to a self made man.

People also use the whole 'United have spent almost as much as City and won nothing' argument, but that was under the likes of Moyes, Solskjaer and Van Gaal who were clearly not up to the job and are not the managers we should be comparing him to.

It's not like he'd have to go to Brighton or Southampton to prove himself either, if he went to any other club that didn't have the most expensive squad ever assembled and won the CL then I'm pretty sure that would settle the argument, but we all know the reasons why that would never happen. Winning against the odds is undoubtedly an important part of this discussion and he's simply never had to do it.

 

[ForeverRed1]

Not until he wins champions league with Aberdeen

 

[Vialli_92]

Not until he wins champions league with Aberdeen

Haha this made me laugh

 

[Camara]

Would you also give Pep 4 years to clear deadwood and build his team if he was to go and mange a team with a smaller budget the way Klopp was able to do?

Sure, but in that case he will be in the same class as Klopp and other excellent managers, not a class above as some claim.


And no one is asking (I think) that he should pick relegation fodder and made them champions in order to prove himself.
What people are waiting to see is him replicating his domination in a title contender that isn't above the others significantly.

In Barça he was on level with his rivals but with the domination of the spanish golden generation + Messi it does ask the question if he did just rode that wave (steering it with his quality of course). Mourinho did climb up a hill and bested him in the league before he left, Villanova did have a better league record after he left with 100 points (with his team and methods) and with that core team Luis Enrique also won league and CL. He absolutely had his imprint in that team but imho it's pretty reasonable to have doubts on who "benefited" more from whom.

In Bayern he had a dominant team that often bought their rival's best players with the reverse not happening (despite not winning the league every season before him), had reached 3 CL finals in 4 years and directly inherited a treble winning team.

In City he picked a team that had already been champion twice in the 5 years before him, with money injection continuing and accelerating during his tenure, adding more and more starter and bench players to an already title challenging squad beyond what other teams could do.

 

[Bebestation]

Just like Messi - Pep only needs to win an international cup now to be GOAT.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Personally, I still rank Rinus Michels (total football/positional play) , Helenio Herrera (catenaccio) , Viktor Maslov (pressing football) and Gusztav Sebes (false 9 with total football) above ANY managers that came after them. Because all our modern greats like Guardiola, Ferguson, Ancelotti, Mourinho are just revisiting the tactics these gents invented to garner consistent footballing success. I doubt there is any prevailing tactic in the game today that does not hail from those 4 gentlemen