Wow, out of curiosity, why would you have given it to Pep in 2013? Is it mostly to do with the head-to-head clashes with Mourinho/Real Madrid during that period? Pep himself would probably admit that he was still a quite young, naive and idealistic manager at that point. A much different prospect to the more seasoned tactician, man-manager and pubic figure he is now after all of the travails in Europe.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.
SAF has his own "miracles" in the same category of Clough's greatest triumphs, so he had at least demonstrated capacity in that regard, even if they might not be classed as being of the same caliber of Clough's. Pep has nothing in the category, whereas Mourinho does.It's a bit like arguing that Brian Clough is better than Sir Alex.
Simply because at that point he had created the greatest and the most dominant club side that I've personally seen. And yes, generally outclassed Mourinho in their head-to-head battles.Wow, out of curiosity, why would you have given it to Pep in 2013? Is it mostly to do with the head-to-head clashes with Mourinho/Real Madrid during that period? Pep himself would probably admit that he was still a quite young, naive and idealistic manager at that point. A much different prospect to the more seasoned tactician, man-manager and pubic figure he is now after all of the travails in Europe.
Understood, thanks. Your commentary dovetails a bit with my thoughts about the greatness of Pep's teams correlating with the full measure of his greatness as a coach - something that goes a bit beyond just winning trophies.Simply because at that point he had created the greatest and the most dominant club side that I've personally seen. And yes, generally outclassed Mourinho in their head-to-head battles.
I've seen other underdog wins that impressed me even more than Porto. I also don't really like using Porto as a barometer of Jose's ability since his most impressive stint was at Chelsea in my opinion (and it was really, really good; properly scary as a United fan). I haven't seen anything close to that Barca side aside from Michels' Ajax and Sacchi's Milan.
It's not vagueBig 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.
Spending big sums doesn't always win you the league, and the way he propelled them to such a great level deserves major credit.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.
Yes absolutely I mean league / CLYou mean specifically titles right? Because Chelsea had won a handful of trophies in the 6-7 years directly preceding the takeover and Mourinho’s arrival.
Nowhere near Sir Alex. Also, literally a Pep Guardiola is my idol.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.
Not Klopp even though I still give Pep the edgeMourinho 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.
In my time of watching football, I doubt very few teams made opponents feel hopeless like Pep Barcelona, you will barely touch the ball and they almost always winUnderstood, thanks. Your commentary dovetails a bit with my thoughts about the greatness of Pep's teams correlating with the full measure of his greatness as a coach - something that goes a bit beyond just winning trophies.
Depends on the club.Who would you rather have managing your club?
That's your answer.
Jose is famous in his generation. Pep, on the other hand, will have future generations still look back to him as a cornerstone in the football history.Pep's in such a unique position. No grind or origin story of merit; constantly plopped into elite teams with the greatest resources in their league. Under those conditions, the trophy haul is to be expected. How he gets his teams to play and the innovations he comes up with is another story entirely, however.
On trophies and the merits of what's been won, it's not close to being a wash, but in terms of what they've brought to the game at large and how their coaching in and of itself is regarded, Mourinho is stuck in an era, but Pep, like the true great ones constantly evolves and adapts - the game doesn't leave him behind. In fact, he dictates where the game shall go next, to this point in time. To have that about you for so many years is a very special quality no matter what you think of the cherry-picking he's managed to do or the financial/competitive advantages.
In terms of organic progression, warts and all, Pep can't beat Jose, but in terms of being a better coach, I don't think Jose can beat Pep.
Chelsea weren't nobodies like City when he came. Otherwise you might as well include Mancini in your ATG great list for cheating his way to a title with City from when they were nobodies.Spending big sums doesn't always win you the league, and the way he propelled them to such a great level deserves major credit.
It's a bit mental how many people are literally but hurt from a throwaway line. If you want to play down Joses achievements then play down Peps. The guy has never taken a role without a chequebook or generational talent at his disposal.
Ask fans of every top 4 club in the top 5 leagues who they'll have as their coach and i'm pretty sure Pep wins in a landslide. Even amongst Chelsea fans.
And those who think that the outcome of whatever investigations will hurt Pep's legacy are lying to themselves. Every big team out there will still want Pep because they simply know what he brings to the table in terms of coaching.
And the comparison with Armstrong is just laughable. While one can question the fact that City shouldn't have been able to put together the squad they did, they've trained and beaten their opponents fair and square on the pitch.
No, they're both literal all-time greats. Pep will be spoken about in the same terms as Michels, Cruyff and any other innovator who changed the face and concepts of the game.Jose is famous in his generation. Pep, on the other hand, will have future generations still look back to him as a cornerstone in the football history.
Yes they cheated off the pitch so they could win fairly on the pitch. How commendable.
I'll say the difference is that the Abu Dhabi backers with blind checks prefer another brand of football and aren't willing the back Jose.Crazy how far his reputation has fallen, he was a great manager in his time. The difference between Jose and Pep is he didn’t find his Abu Dhabi backers with a blank chequebook.
One can argue that Chelsea and Jose did exactly the same thing but didn't get into any problem because FFP became a thing after the period they did their spending.Yes they cheated off the pitch so they could win fairly on the pitch. How commendable.
My point isn't "pointless". Mancinis prime City side wasn't as good as what Jose built. Bit of a weird comparison to hang your hat on there. I think what Pep built at City is brilliant, albeit belated (the fact it took him cheating plus a blanque chequebook and still 6(?) years to win the CL with City is impressive but I feel he could have got it sooner).Chelsea weren't nobodies like City when he came. Otherwise you might as well include Mancini in your ATG great list for cheating his way to a title with City from when they were nobodies.
Your point is pretty pointless as without the money he spent Chelsea wouldn't have won anything. And to the extent he spent to anything but a win would have been poor. £330 million in 2005/2006/07 is absolutely insane. To act like its a little plucky underdog is hilarious.
Whatever Pep is accused of at City, JM did it and more at Chelsea. You give that sort of cash to Fergie and Wenger in 2005 they would have wiped the floor with the league and more.
Would you consider Liverpool under Klopp underdogs to win the 2019 CL? Or Real Madrid under Ancelotti in 2022?My point isn't "pointless". Mancinis prime City side wasn't as good as what Jose built. Bit of a weird comparison to hang your hat on there. I think what Pep built at City is brilliant, albeit belated (the fact it took him cheating plus a blanque chequebook and still 6(?) years to win the CL with City is impressive but I feel he could have got it sooner).
My original preference on Jose over pep cited his triumphs at Inter and Porto TOGETHER with Chelsea and you're fixated on Chelsea.
I never said his Chelsea side were underdogs by the way. I said he took Porto and Inter as underdogs to win the CL (which they were) and won it during his time there.
Before Klopp took over certainly.Would you consider Liverpool under Klopp underdogs to win the 2019 CL? Or Real Madrid under Ancelotti in 2022?
Jose had Roman blank checkbookCrazy how far his reputation has fallen, he was a great manager in his time. The difference between Jose and Pep is he didn’t find his Abu Dhabi backers with a blank chequebook.
The only difference between Jose Chelsea and City Pep is A) City’s greater dominance and CL success and B) Jose creating a culture of success and major trophies I.e the whole champions mentality whereas Pep has always taken over teams that have had recent major success. His Bayern won the treble before him. Barcelona despite his brilliant job were league league winners two years prior.Jose had Roman blank checkbook
That's one way of looking at things, another way will be saying that same Barcelona team didn't win anything for 2 years before he arrived and they won every single title in his first season there.The only difference between Jose Chelsea and City Pep is A) City’s greater dominance and CL success and B) Jose creating a culture of success and major trophies I.e the whole champions mentality whereas Pep has always taken over teams that have had recent major success. His Bayern won the treble before him. Barcelona despite his brilliant job were league league winners two years prior.
Otherwise, yes. Jose is as much a chequebook manager as he’s required heavy funding everywhere he’s had success. I do think he really messed up by taking the United job. I dont rate the job he did here and for me he failed in too many regards but in hindsight I think the other top managers might have struggled under the Glazers too. The structure at Liverpool and City is miles ahead of ours for example.
Chelsea’s chequebook was much smaller. It’s not even comparable, really. And Chelsea hadn’t been winning titles prior to Jose arriving, they were much less established than City were.I'll say the difference is that the Abu Dhabi backers with blind checks prefer another brand of football and aren't willing the back Jose.
One can argue that Chelsea and Jose did exactly the same thing but didn't get into any problem because FFP became a thing after the period they did their spending.
But with that been said, it's a false equivalence to equate financial cheating off the pitch, to athletes doping themselves and outperforming others on the pitch.
Compare the margins by which the opposition was outspent. Chelsea at the time spent multiples of their rivals, with a transfer deficit 4-5 times as large.Chelsea’s chequebook was much smaller. It’s not even comparable, really. And Chelsea hadn’t been winning titles prior to Jose arriving, they were much less established than City were.
How much credit should he take for creating it though? He absolutely made some fantastic and gutsy decisions for their betterment but it's not like they were nobodies, they had already won the cl 3 years previously, made the semi the year before and in that year shouldn't have even been in the final in the first place.Simply because at that point he had created the greatest and the most dominant club side that I've personally seen. And yes, generally outclassed Mourinho in their head-to-head battles.
I've seen other underdog wins that impressed me even more than Porto. I also don't really like using Porto as a barometer of Jose's ability since his most impressive stint was at Chelsea in my opinion (and it was really, really good; properly scary as a United fan). I haven't seen anything close to that Barca side aside from Michels' Ajax and Sacchi's Milan.
A lot. They finished 3rd 10 points behind runners up Villarreal (I'm not even going to talk about Madrid) just before Pep came in, ffs! And the fact that he made them that great is actually a testament to Pep's ability — it's more or less the same side from 2007/08 yet they suddenly became an all-conquering juggernaut.How much credit should he take for creating it though? He absolutely made some fantastic and gutsy decisions for their betterment but it's not like they were nobodies, they had already won the cl 3 years previously, made the semi the year before and in that year shouldn't have even been in the final in the first place.
In terms of his team building chops I found his city stint much more impressive than what he did at barca.
I agree with you in general but that's a little bit misleading. Xavi and Iniesta were both important players in Rijkaard's Barcelona but Xavi tore his ligament in 2005/06 so he missed half a season while Iniesta was on the bench in Paris and was brought on at half time. And of course Messi himself only missed out on the final because of injury.Also, here's a side to side comparison of the side that won it in 2006 (that you use as an argument) and Pep's 2008/09 side. There's literally only 3 players left — the rest were replaced, including that side's greatest star by an enormous margin.
Messi wasn't really a starter back then, he had 11 starts in the league and 4 in the CL that season. He was playing in the B team the year before.I agree with you in general but that's a little bit misleading. Xavi and Iniesta were both important players in Rijkaard's Barcelona but Xavi tore his ligament in 2005/06 so he missed half a season while Iniesta was on the bench in Paris and was brought on at half time. And of course Messi himself only missed out on the final because of injury.
Nah I meant at the peak of Klopp's powers. Because they were the same odds to win in 2019 as Mourinho's 'underdog' Inter were in 2010 at the start of the competition.Before Klopp took over certainly.
And didn't Ancelotti go all the way after what, 5-6 years of Real Madrid failing at the quarters? Or was that Zidane actually. Real Madrid are rarely ever seen as underdogs in the CL. They tend to be up there as the top 3 or top favourite.
My point regarding Jose is, whilst really admiring Peps feat at City and Barcelona especially, I feel Jose has taken on bigger challenges and he's achieved greatness with lesser odds (Inter, Porto specifically) than Pep did. This is peak Jose though. Pep has already proven to be a manager of greater longevity.
Jose has won 7 out of their 25 direct duels. He can't hold a candle to Klopp as the bogeyman killer.Guardiola is the boogeyman. Jose is the person you call to kill the boogeyman. He is the football’s version of Baba Yaga.
Why do we talk about Liverpool and Inter during that time?Nah I meant at the peak of Klopp's powers. Because they were the same odds to win in 2019 as Mourinho's 'underdog' Inter were in 2010 at the start of the competition.
And as for Real Madrid in 2022 (not the 2014 one), they were more underdogs than Mourinho in the betting.
But the point was Inter weren't underdogs, they were the best team in Serie A because of Calciopoli, that's the point and they were 14/1 to the win the Champions League, hardly rank outsiders and about middle of the road for CL winners. They also weren't underdogs before Mourinho arrived, in 2007/08 they were actually lower odds to win the tournament. Inter were 14/1, by comparison Porto were 50/1 when the competition started. Inter last year getting to the final were underdogs, or Chelsea when they won it.Why do we talk about Liverpool and Inter during that time?
Before Klopp and Jose took over, they were big underdogs. And they took over, transcended the team to being more than that and made them into clubs where you can conceive of them winning big. Then they did win big.
It's like me saying Pep winning the CL last year wasn't a big deal because they weren't underdogs. Point is they weren't underdogs because of him. Before he came in to elevate their level, they were underdogs.
So when judging a manager I like to see how they elevated their status. I think both Jose and pep elevated their teams. But peak Jose did it with more challenging outfits, and he won Porto the CL after how many years? Inter the CL after how many years? Those two feats are massive.
Last seasons treble with City is massive for pep but I rate peak Jose's work more highly.