Jose > Pep - is it such a ridiculous notion?

[kaiser1]

I still have no idea where this "Inter as underdogs" thing is coming from. They were only genuine underdogs compared to Pep's Barcelona but that's about it - but everyone were underdogs compared to that side at the time. Every bookmaker had them as favourites over Van Gaal's Bayern in the final. They have as many CL trophies as United. They were the dominant force in Italy at the time. They had players like Maicon, Samuel, Lucio, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Sneijder, Eto'o... it was a fecking fantastic team, not some plucky underdog.

This is true, I went into that CL final with zero hopes and was just thinking maybe we can get lucky especially with Ribery suspended. A real underdog was DiMatteos run who finished 6th in the league. I fully expected Bayern to win that game

 

[Taribo's Gap]

He won the grandest prize in Europe with 2 teams that were underdogs. I never talked about Real Madrid.

Inter Milan and Porto had no right to go all the way really.

There is a lot of merit to taking an underdog to big trophies, but Pep's achievements should also be better framed for what they are. Sure, he has racked up a lot of trophies, but the true extent of what he has done is in creating teams that will be situated in the pantheon of historically great teams, assuming the records stand.

His Barcelona team are in the discussion for the greatest club side ever and his City are in the discussion for the greatest Premier League club side ever. Very few if any people had those expectations of Pep prior to him taking on those assignments. It's an absurdly high standard to expect of anyone.

Taking an underdog to a top trophy is hard. But so is turning a great team into an historic team. It's like going from 70 to 90, versus going to 90 to 99, with each incremental improvement at the upper echelon being increasingly more difficult to attain. The reason people are so impressed with Klopp's work at Liverpool is because he essentially combined both and took the underdog to historical-caliber feats.

 

[VP89]

I still have no idea where this "Inter as underdogs" thing is coming from. They were only genuine underdogs compared to Pep's Barcelona but that's about it - but everyone were underdogs compared to that side at the time. Every bookmaker had them as favourites over Van Gaal's Bayern in the final. They have as many CL trophies as United. They were the dominant force in Italy at the time. They had players like Maicon, Samuel, Lucio, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Sneijder, Eto'o... it was a fecking fantastic team, not some plucky underdog.

Before Mourinho came, they were not a favourite to win the CL.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I think people are letting the post-treble years affect their perception of Inter.

Somebody listed their yearly ranking on Wikipedia. They were 11, 9, 4, and 4 in the years previous to the treble win. Not a top dog but not an underdog. But a few years after the treble win, their ranking plummets, reaching an abysmal 83 in 17/18.

It was a team that underperformed in Europe but that was solid otherwise.

 

[Krakenzero]

I think it was a reasonable opinion to have until last season when Pep became the first coach ever to win two trebles (Jock Stein, Rinus Michels, Guus Hiddink, Louis Van Gaal, Alex Ferguson, José Mourinho, Jupp Heynckes, Luis Enrique and Hansi Flick have one). Just like it was somewhat reasonable to think that Cristiano Ronaldo was better than Messi before 2022.

 

[Gandalf]

Pep is a filthy cheat and therefore Neil Warnock > Pep is not ridiculous.

 

[Vitro]

If both Mourinho and Pep became available tomorrow who would the big clubs want to hire? Big clubs with dozens of expert advisors and millions, perhaps billions at stake. That’s the answer.

 

[Shark]

If both Mourinho and Pep became available tomorrow who would the big clubs want to hire? Big clubs with dozens of expert advisors and millions, perhaps billions at stake. That’s the answer.

Big clubs is vague though. There's a difference between a bottomless pit at City, and a club like Bayern where Pep didn't exactly shine. Jose at his peak on the other hand won titles and CL's with more limited resources.

 

[Hound Dog]

If both Mourinho and Pep became available tomorrow who would the big clubs want to hire? Big clubs with dozens of expert advisors and millions, perhaps billions at stake. That’s the answer.

I am afraid he is out of doped clubs to join. Maybe PSG though

 

[lex talionis]

Ridiculous, but it should be noted that City are a de facto criminal enterprise, but I’m not prepared to blame Pep for that.

 

[Trezeguet17]

Pep turned the PL to a one horse league a la Ligue 1 or Bundesliga.

And please correct me if I‘m wrong but haven‘t we and Chelsea both spent more in transfers than City since he joined?

Unless he gets all his City accolades taken from him I only have SAF on top of him in Goat discussions..

 

[kaiser1]

Big clubs is vague though. There's a difference between a bottomless pit at City, and a club like Bayern where Pep didn't exactly shine. Jose at his peak on the other hand won titles and CL's with more limited resources.

Bayern was begging Pep for an extension. Most big clubs will jump at the opportunity to have Pep coach them and I doubt any top team will want Mourinho on their training pitch

 

[ArtetasHair]

The history revisionism here with JM is unbelievable as I don't understand why do we keep mentioning his Chelsea years but bashing Pep for the same?

JM absolutely cheated his way to the 2 titles with Chelsea in the 00s. Chelsea spent £330 million during his time there.....an amount that is crazy today but was absolutely insane back in the day in 2005 2006. While United and Arsenal both topped at 60 to 70 million in comparison. He abused Romans open cheque book the same Pep abuses City's. To act as if he was a little plucky underdog is absolutely hilarious.

And it's all coming to light now, Chelsea transfer cheating, shady dealings and so on.

He then went off to Inter where let's face it they were an absolutely stacked team but we will give him that CL win as it was still an excellent achievement.

Then at Madrid, yeah they weren't exactly poor either. And he's been on a downturn since

 

[ArtetasHair]

Yeah, so they weren't established winners. But its also about what he did during his time at Chelsea, he displaced us for a period which was phenomenal.

Which he wouldn't have done had he not outspent his nearest rivals by 200 percent due to Romans money, is kind of the point.

 

[el3mel]

Mourinho is one of my favorite managers but this hasn't been a context since their City/United time. Guardiola is just on a different level to all managers in the world not just Mourinho. There's Guardiola then there are other managers.

 

[Swoobs]

Suppose you are a billionaire and bought United from the glazers. Both mou and pep wants to join you and coach United, who will you choose when you put your money where your mouth is. That is the answer to this thread

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The history revisionism here with JM is unbelievable as I don't understand why do we keep mentioning his Chelsea years but bashing Pep for the same?

It's probably easier to praise Jose's Chelsea stint in a United forum since United ultimately prevailed, winning more league titles than that Chelsea team and beating them in the CL final.

 

[Real Name]

It was a contest before, not any more. On the one hand Pep is a cheat or he's a manager of a cheating club but he changed football and is in the talk of Goats for sure. That doesnt take away Jose's achievents but Jose's carrer has been in downhill mode steadily since his 2nd Chelsea stint.

The talk about Pep and him needing to manage Burnley to show his worth is ridiculous. He's an elite manager who goes to the best clubs or the clubs who pay the most money or both.

 

[Siorac]

The talk about Pep and him needing to manage Burnley to show his worth is ridiculous.

Especially as it's not like Mourinho ever managed a club like Burnley, other than half a season at Uniao Leiria. He did well there, sure, but that's it. Apart from that, he was always at one of the richest clubs in their respective countries. His career doesn't have a "Klopp at Mainz" or "Fergie at St. Mirren/Aberdeen" stage.

 

[Real Name]

Especially as it's not like Mourinho ever managed a club like Burnley, other than half a season at Uniao Leiria. He did well there, sure, but that's it. Apart from that, he was always at one of the richest clubs in their respective countries. His career doesn't have a "Klopp at Mainz" or "Fergie at St. Mirren/Aberdeen" stage.

Exactly. Wherever he was he had money at his disposal. Sure, the thing he did with Porto was great but Porto wasnt exactly a minnow.

 

[Camara]

On the flip side of this argument, i think Mourinho also couldn't win with team who was meant to win...if that makes any sense?

I think the underdog mentality suited prime Mourinho to the tee. Prime Mourinho was indeed super impressive - he also had Chelsea/Madrid playing some great football, albeit they were super dominant in terms of "expensively assembled squads" - and he failed to deliver the UCL with them.

He failed to deliver but notice how Mourinho always goes for a "challenge" and when his team reaches the peak he left it (in this case it was only Porto and Inter). He did not have the opportunity to use the teams he built after they reached the top (sort of did with Porto though).
In Chelsea he had a rising Chelsea and unlimited funds but he had to face the Arsenal invincibles and a very strong Man Utd. He was a newcomer to the league, although this wasn't the hardest job he had he still did a pretty amazing job. He won titles back to back.
He then went to Inter, and be sure Inter had not a realistic ambition to win the CL. The league was sort of certain since Juve went diving and Inter was already champion when he got there but the CL? No one expected Inter to win, he made Inter competitive. And when he got the treble he left for another challenge immediately.
He went to frigging Real, a team with a lot of money but it was facing this little Barcelona Dream Team. Everyone considered Barcelona the best team in the world regardless of the Inter victory and Mou had massive ambition to put his reputation at stake to try to change the order of things in Spain.
He then went back to Chelsea, that was around 3rd-4th place, and tried and managed to get them champions.
Then he went to post-apocalyptic Man Utd, *Spurs* and now Roma.
If he was as Pep has done so far he would simply wait after Real/Chelsea for someone else like PSG invite him as they absolutely would.

Exactly. Wherever he was he had money at his disposal. Sure, the thing he did with Porto was great but Porto wasnt exactly a minnow.

No one cares that Mou won the portuguese league with Porto, people care that Porto (much poorer than the favourites) won the CL (and the UEFA cup to a lesser degree), that is so obvious

 

[Ish]

He failed to deliver but notice how Mourinho always goes for a "challenge" and when his team reaches the peak he left it (in this case it was only Porto and Inter). He did not have the opportunity to use the teams he built after they reached the top (sort of did with Porto though).
In Chelsea he had a rising Chelsea and unlimited funds but he had to face the Arsenal invincibles and a very strong Man Utd. He was a newcomer to the league, although this wasn't the hardest job he had he still did a pretty amazing job. He won titles back to back.
He then went to Inter, and be sure Inter had not a realistic ambition to win the CL. The league was sort of certain since Juve went diving and Inter was already champion when he got there but the CL? No one expected Inter to win, he made Inter competitive. And when he got the treble he left for another challenge immediately.
He went to frigging Real, a team with a lot of money but it was facing this little Barcelona Dream Team. Everyone considered Barcelona the best team in the world regardless of the Inter victory and Mou had massive ambition to put his reputation at stake to try to change the order of things in Spain.
He then went back to Chelsea, that was around 3rd-4th place, and tried and managed to get them champions.
Then he went to post-apocalyptic Man Utd, *Spurs* and now Roma.
If he was as Pep has done so far he would simply wait after Real/Chelsea for someone else like PSG invite him as they absolutely would.

No one cares that Mou won the portuguese league with Porto, people care that Porto (much poorer than the favourites) won the CL (and the UEFA cup to a lesser degree), that is so obvious

Always goes for a challenge or always leaves either for ambition to a bigger club (leaving Porto & Inter) or because he’s fallen out with everyone and had to leave or got sacked? (little hazy but I think Chelsea, Madrid, Chelsea, Spurs, United all fall into this category).

 

[IRELANDUNITED]

Whatever Jose won he done so without cheating. Everything Pep had achieved is tainted by all the cheating allegations that follow him.

 

[Real Name]

He failed to deliver but notice how Mourinho always goes for a "challenge" and when his team reaches the peak he left it (in this case it was only Porto and Inter). He did not have the opportunity to use the teams he built after they reached the top (sort of did with Porto though).
In Chelsea he had a rising Chelsea and unlimited funds but he had to face the Arsenal invincibles and a very strong Man Utd. He was a newcomer to the league, although this wasn't the hardest job he had he still did a pretty amazing job. He won titles back to back.
He then went to Inter, and be sure Inter had not a realistic ambition to win the CL. The league was sort of certain since Juve went diving and Inter was already champion when he got there but the CL? No one expected Inter to win, he made Inter competitive. And when he got the treble he left for another challenge immediately.
He went to frigging Real, a team with a lot of money but it was facing this little Barcelona Dream Team. Everyone considered Barcelona the best team in the world regardless of the Inter victory and Mou had massive ambition to put his reputation at stake to try to change the order of things in Spain.
He then went back to Chelsea, that was around 3rd-4th place, and tried and managed to get them champions.
Then he went to post-apocalyptic Man Utd, *Spurs* and now Roma.
If he was as Pep has done so far he would simply wait after Real/Chelsea for someone else like PSG invite him as they absolutely would.



No one cares that Mou won the portuguese league with Porto, people care that Porto (much poorer than the favourites) won the CL (and the UEFA cup to a lesser degree), that is so obvious

He didnt have opportunity to use the teams he built cause he got sacked. In every club he was he would do good before getting into argument with everyone in and around the club including the tea ladies.
As I said nobody is taking away his achievements but there's a reason he's now at Roma and before that he was at Spurs. With all due respect to those clubs.
For instance his first PL years, in his first 2 years United was in transformation and as soon as we got our act together we won the league in 2007 and then won it next 2 years too.

 

[Blood Mage]

I'd take prime Mourinho over Pep for sure.

 

[Camara]

Always goes for a challenge or always leaves either for ambition to a bigger club (leaving Porto & Inter) or because he’s fallen out with everyone and had to leave or got sacked? (little hazy but I think Chelsea, Madrid, Chelsea, Spurs, United all fall into this category).

What does that have to do with him *choosing* the club after being sacked? He himself chooses to go to clubs where there will be a challenge.
If he wanted to play safe after Chelsea he could have just waited for PSG for example, they would pick him, but instead he prefered to go to a decadent United.

 

[GhastlyHun]

Whatever Jose won he done so without cheating. Everything Pep had achieved is tainted by all the cheating allegations that follow him.

Because his massive spending at Inter and Chelsea was something different? I guess the rules of FFP had not been written, so it must be fine.

 

[Camara]

He didnt have opportunity to use the teams he built cause he got sacked. In every club he was he would do good before getting into argument with everyone in and around the club including the tea ladies.
As I said nobody is taking away his achievements but there's a reason he's now at Roma and before that he was at Spurs. With all due respect to those clubs.
For instance his first PL years, in his first 2 years United was in transformation and as soon as we got our act together we won the league in 2007 and then won it next 2 years too.

When he built the great teams that won everything (Porto and Inter) he immediately left.
In the other teams, although some were great, he never got to the same level of full achievement.
He is now at Roma because he chose to - do you honestly think that, for example PSG, wouldn't want him, especially some years ago when they really wanted to step up in fame / victories?

In his first 2 years in Chelsea he was champion, Utd was in transition and eventually developped one of the best players of all time but still had a great team core and Arsenal was near their peak. He also broke records in the league in that period, United did step up to match him and won the league (mostly thanks to Ronaldo pulling stuff out of nowhere) but how does that say his Chelsea was bad, especially after winning the league 2 years in a row?
It was a challenge regardless when he went to Chelsea. United and Arsenal were theoretically better than Chelsea before the summer expenses in that year and he chose to go there to compete with United and Arsenal. Chelsea was close to win things but haven't done that yet.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

Because his massive spending at Inter and Chelsea was something different? I guess the rules of FFP had not been written, so it must be fine.

Pick and choose...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...hampions-League-bribery-referees-2003-04.html

 

[Camara]

Because his massive spending at Inter and Chelsea was something different? I guess the rules of FFP had not been written, so it must be fine.

What massive spending in Inter? He literally had to sell the best player he had (half the entire transfer budget from that) in order to fill the team.
In Real, let me pick that, he spent less in his 3 years combined that the manager in the year before and the manager in the year after. Yes he of course inherited super expensive players but still didn't spend much to try to fill the other positions (remember Adebayor?).

He only had a massive spending in Chelsea and United. In Real he had a decent spending but less that Real often did, in Inter he had to make trade offs to spend, Porto had no money europe-wise, Spurs did not spend that much and Roma is broke, this year in Roma he spent less than any other team in the league.

 

[Real Name]

When he built the great teams that won everything (Porto and Inter) he immediately left.
In the other teams, although some were great, he never got to the same level of full achievement.
He is now at Roma because he chose to - do you honestly think that, for example PSG, wouldn't want him, especially some years ago when they really wanted to step up in fame / victories?

In his first 2 years in Chelsea he was champion, Utd was in transition and eventually developped one of the best players of all time but still had a great team core and Arsenal was near their peak. He also broke records in the league in that period, United did step up to match him and won the league (mostly thanks to Ronaldo pulling stuff out of nowhere) but how does that say his Chelsea was bad, especially after winning the league 2 years in a row?
It was a challenge regardless when he went to Chelsea. United and Arsenal were theoretically better than Chelsea before the summer expenses in that year and he chose to go there to compete with United and Arsenal. Chelsea was close to win things but haven't done that yet.

United was theoretically better until he spent all that money at Chelsea yes. That's why he went there, cause Abramovič came with all the money to lure him which is normal.
I didnt say his 1st Chelsea stint was bad, just said what the competition was like.

He left Inter yes but was sacked in all other clubs after that.

Dont you think if PSG wanted him he would go there and Roma is just his decision?
I doubt it.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

In Real, let me pick that, he spent less in his 3 years combined that the manager in the year before and the manager in the year after. Yes he of course inherited super expensive players but still didn't spend much to try to fill the other positions (remember Adebayor?).

I think being given a super expensive team that was bought a year before you came in counts as spending a lot of money. He was given one expensive player each summer too (Di María, Coentrao, and Modric).

Adebayor was a quick loan because Real Madrid already had Cristiano Ronaldo, Gonzalo Higuaín, and Karim Benzema, yet this guy was demanding more firepower!

 

[TheLord]

It isn't ridiculous actually. Prime Jose was superb. That prime finished around the time he left Real Madrid for Chelsea (second stint). He racked up some crazy stats in his first Chelsea stint, especially defensive ones, like 6-7 PL matches without conceding even a single goal, nearly 90 matches without losing at home, etc.

 

[Alex99]

Depending on the result of certain investigations, there's a (slim) chance that Guardiola is seen similarly to Lance Armstrong.

 

[TheLord]

But if the comparison is over the span of an entire career, then Pep will be absolutely untouchable by the time he finishes his career - GOAT club manager - pending the result of an 'investigation' as the previous poster pointed out.

 

[Alex99]

But if the comparison is over the span of an entire career, then Pep will be absolutely untouchable by the time he finishes his career - GOAT club manager - pending the result of an 'investigation' as the previous poster pointed out.

There's a couple of incredibly dodgy things surrounding Barcelona too. Can't remember anything from his time at Bayern but his success there was about as straightforward as it comes.

 

[Ish]

What does that have to do with him *choosing* the club after being sacked? He himself chooses to go to clubs where there will be a challenge.
If he wanted to play safe after Chelsea he could have just waited for PSG for example, they would pick him, but instead he prefered to go to a decadent United.

You're saying "he never had time to manage the great teams he's built...but instead chose to leave..." - ergo, he didn't choose to leave in many of those situations, he was in fact...sacked. That's why i mentioned the sacking. It wasn't by choice that he "chose to leave for a challenge instead of reaping the fruits of his labor", per se. He's also at Roma (and Spurs before them) because he's running out of options and there aren't many (any?) of the elite clubs left who will touch him.

Also, I'm not sure PSG wanted him. Fact is, his stock was on the wane as his sackings became more and more frequent and his methods, seemingly more and more outdated. We can argue in circles about this all day, but I'm really not that passionate about the topic. Mourinho was a managerial great during his prime. I just don't think he'll go down as a greater manager than Pep. We can agree to disagree there.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Different strokes, but I vastly prefer to watch Pep's teams play football. You can argue he only does it with the absolute top teams, but he still makes those teams play more attractive footbal than the other teams in that echelon. I'm sure you can make an argument for the fighting spirit and "do or die" mentality of Jose's great teams.

Personally I think they're both cnuts.

 

[harms]

It wouldn't be that ridiculous to say that around 2013 (although, in my opinion, still wrong). Right now it does sound pretty ridiculous as Pep just kept going (while Jose won what, one league trophy?). At that point it was a story very similar to that of their star players, Cristiano (Jose) constantly struggling to chase Messi (Pep) while breaking all sorts of records. He even started out earlier, just like Ronaldo.

No one has been able to consistently better Pep so far (Klopp probably came in closest, especially when you consider the disparity in resources) while Jose has been washed up and outclassed by many different managers for the better part of the past decade.

Yes, Pep always had stacked squads and tons of money available but we shouldn't underestimate what he did at Barca and City (not so much at Bayern) — both were talented sides but also struggling ones in more ways than one. So he'll never top Mourinho's Porto underdog win but he still outshines him quite comfortably.

 

[harms]

I think people are letting the post-treble years affect their perception of Inter.

Somebody listed their yearly ranking on Wikipedia. They were 11, 9, 4, and 4 in the years previous to the treble win. Not a top dog but not an underdog. But a few years after the treble win, their ranking plummets, reaching an abysmal 83 in 17/18.

It was a team that underperformed in Europe but that was solid otherwise.

This. They were a great side and winning a CL with them was not a miracle, just a very impressive achievement, considering the strength of Barca at that point. I wouldn't put it past Pep to win in with them — in a completely different manner, of course. Porto is the only real miracle in Jose's career.