Guardiola vs Klopp

[CognitiveNeuro]

Guardiola also went to City with shit and past it players like Zabaleta, Mangala, Fernando, Delph, Hart. What matters is the team they currently have. Klopp does an impressive job of building teams, but the team Pep has built at City is also impressive. If it comes down to comparing both, then you could sentimentally put Klopp alongside Guardiola but not ahead of him with the vast difference in quantifiable achievements between them. It is 27 against 6 in this situation, and no amount of context should put 6 ahead of 27. Because Klopp won 6 with Dortmund and Liverpool does not mean he is going to win 27 with Bayern, Barca and City. Ranieri won the EPL with Leicester, but didn't win it with Chelsea.
Klopp might excel at being the underdog - though 6 consecutive finals defeats does not help his case, but he still has a long way to go to get to Mourinho. Mourinho won:
- Porto's first UCL title in 18 years.
- Chelsea's first two EPL titles in 51 years.
- Inter's first UCL title in 46 years + the treble.
He is Chelsea's most successful manager, the only manager to have beaten Pep to a league title, one of the fews managers to have won the treble, and he did it with Inter. If there's any manager that really excels at being the underdog, it is Mourinho.
The head-to-head record is a good argument to bring to the table, but you've to note that most of Klopp's games against Mourinho were when Mourinho was likely past his peak. I'd like to see the record too.

Guardiola went to a club that won the Premier League title 2 years before that with CL football and most importantly money available.

Klopp went to a side that finished in 6th place and 8th place the season where he took over from Rodgers, out of the Champions League and haven't won the premier league. He needed to get a bunch of crap players to finish in a CL position first to even get the money to build. A Man Utd fan of all should understand how hard that is to do.

Come on now. You can't compare the level of building required between the two teams. It's vastly different.

 

[Pow]

Klopp hasn't won that much at all, so given that many, many coaches have, I don't see why Pep couldn't. There's a reason why Pep was wanted by those clubs in the first place. People in here were playing both sides of the argument with Man City, "Guardiola won't have it as easy as he did at Bayern" and then also "Haha, he didn't win as much as he did with Bayern" in that first season. Like, isn't that the same point?



It's not a "disadvantage" , it's a matter of the situation. Klopp isn't doing more than Pep is, by any metric you can measure. People keep talking about Klopp like he is working with fishermen and no money. Haven't they both improved several players noticably? If trophies aren't to be counted, then what metric should people use? It's harder at the very top than at any of the rungs below. It's not as simple as "turn up with best players". People can't make that argument and also simutaneously argue that Klopp is somehow over-achieving with his squads. However, it can't be argued that Klopp was never under anything like the pressure at Dortmund or Liverpool that anyone at Bayern or the Manchester clubs or Barca or Madrid would be. That's a fact.

This argument is like saying Messi and Ronaldo need to go play at Scunthorpe to really prove how great they are. Coaches, like players, generally find their level.

And yet again, LEAGUES AND DOMESTIC CUPS MATTER. People have brought this argument up because Liverpool won the CL. If they hadn't won, would the argument be made? Alex Ferguson is a more successful manager than Zinedine Zidane in the eyes of anyone that actually has eyes.

So struggling with the best squad in the league and spending 500 mil plus for success is genius ?

 

[adexkola]

You’re pointing to 2 sets of fixtures but conveniently forgetting the 198/228 points in the ‘toughest league in the world’. It’ll keep getting used because it fits the narrative. In 12 months time Pep will leave City and whoever comes in after him will undoubtably be unable to sustain that level of consistency. If they win a CL with us that doesn’t immediately make them a better manager than Pep.

If he does win the CL the goalposts will shift here.

I say that because when he was at Bayern, the argument was that he needed to come to the Premier League to "prove himself".

I'm just eager for the next bone of contention regarding his record. Probably that anything less than a quintuple is a failure.

 

[Mcking]

@MackRobinson, this has mostly being my argument:

And this ladies and gentlemen, is the reason why noone compares to Pep. Klopp may well be capable of doing the same, but until he does so, he cannot be ahead of Pep. No way. Everything that is based on coulda, shoulda and woulda in football is complete nonsense.

'Better' is a bit of a vague word that cannot exactly be absolutely quantified in many ways in terms of managerial skills. It is not exactly outrageous though nor totally subjective to say that Pep is better than Klopp, or that Klopp should not be rated higher than Pep. Afterall Pep comprehensively betters him in the most relevant and tangible thing for managers - trophies, and you can't exactly play the 'style of football' card in favour of Klopp either.
Obviously, there's that little matter of context, and that is why Poch, Klopp, Pep, Emery can all be regarded as top managers even though some have never won a trophy. The highest rated managers are usually the most successful ones though, and the vast difference between the achievement of Klopp and Pep means that the one with less should not really be rated higher than the one with more. Until Klopp actually outdos Pep in that department, then he really shouldn't be rated higher. Poch has done really well competing against teams that spend much more than him, Emery won three consecutive UELs with the not-so-almightly Sevilla, but there's a reason both cannot be placed above someone like Klopp in the EPL who does more while spending more, because there are levels to everything.
Klopp is a top manager, but no amount of context would place him ahead of Pep with the vast difference in amount of trophies and quantifiable achievements between them.

I agree with this. No amount of context that could be applied would put Klopp ahead of Pep.
Guardiola has won 27 trophies, 17 majors.
Klopp has won 6 trophies, 4 majors.
Simeone on another hand has won 9 trophies, 6 majors. Would you put him ahead of Mourinho who has 25 trophies, 20 majors? Afterall, both are not exactly known for their swashbuckling footballing, but Mourinho outspent everyone at Chelsea, and walked into Real Madrid and Manchester United jobs? That is not how it works. Mourinho and Guardiola are far more successful managers, so they are easily above the other two.

Guardiola also went to City with shit and past it players like Zabaleta, Mangala, Fernando, Delph, Hart. What matters is the team they currently have. Klopp does an impressive job of building teams, but the team Pep has built at City is also impressive. If it comes down to comparing both, then you could sentimentally put Klopp alongside Guardiola but not ahead of him with the vast difference in quantifiable achievements between them. It is 27 against 6 in this situation, and no amount of context should put 6 ahead of 27. Because Klopp won 6 with Dortmund and Liverpool does not mean he is going to win 27 with Bayern, Barca and City. Ranieri won the EPL with Leicester, but didn't win it with Chelsea.
Klopp might excel at being the underdog - though 6 consecutive finals defeats does not help his case, but he still has a long way to go to get to Mourinho. If there's any manager that really excels at being the underdog, it is Mourinho.
The head-to-head record is a good argument to bring to the table, but you've to note that most of Klopp's games against Mourinho were when Mourinho was likely past his peak. I'd like to see the record too.

Well, Pep is better than Klopp at winning trophies. He has 27 trophies in 11 years, Klopp has 6 in 18 years. Pep has shown that he is able to win 27 trophies, and Klopp might well be capable of doing so, but he has not. Why would you put the one that has not ahead of the one that has, what is so hard to understand?

That supposed no-context argument is probably indeed the only factual argument that can be brought to the table. Klopp is a great coach, but until he is able to emulate Pep, he cannot be rated higher than him.

We are not comparing only present day performance, are we? OP is not asking who had the better season.
There is not many tangible or intangible metrics that could be used that would put Klopp ahead Guardiola unless you can provide them. If you think that I'm not presenting a good argument, why not present a better one instead? By putting Poch, Guardiola and Klopp alongside each other based on what could happen, you have done nothing but conjecture and succeded in bringing nothing to the table.

 

[Mcking]

Why hasnt pep won it without messi then ? Its even more embarrassing that the last 2 years hes lost to 2 english sides hes finished above.

I didn't know Guardiola only won the UCL because of Messi. Klopp has not won the UCL without Van Dijk too. Why didn't he win it without Van Dijk, and why hasn't Messi won it for Valverde?

 

[JDoe]

If he does win the CL the goalposts will shift here.

I say that because when he was at Bayern, the argument was that he needed to come to the Premier League to "prove himself".

I'm just eager for the next bone of contention regarding his record. Probably that anything less than a quintuple is a failure.

People were saying that because, and I'm being completely serious here and I'm sure that most of the German fans would agree, that that Bayern team Pep inherited would most probably have won all three league titles even without a manager in charge. Plus I don't think that there are too many people doubting Pep's ability in the league IF he is given the by far best squad and/or unlimited money there.

The biggest stain in Pep's managerial career has always been his abysmal performances in the CL. I honestly cannot recall one single performance against an opponent that is even remotely close individually to the team he managed where Pep's team actually overperformed. Of course this year they have been unlucky, but the Spurs win wasn't even a huge fluke (like that Chelsea run under Matteo) and the final score was completely reasonable given the performances of both teams. It has been incredibly predictable in the last years such that I could honestly never imagine a team managed by Pep winning against an individually superior team. If you replayed the 2015 SF against Barca 10 times, I could never imagine him winning a tie just once.

 

[Ridge Racer]

Football's all about "what have you done for me lately". Ask in any of the previous ten years and most people would say Guardiola. But now Klopp's image is untouchable. A lot of people is eager to deify certain managers once they have a great season; Heynckes is another example of this, he became a football god in 2013 despite having many "meh" seasons as a manager. Had Poch won the CL, this thread would be about Pep vs Poch with many people siding with the latter; it's funny how consistency rarely gets appreciated in the fan's minds.

 

[Mcking]

100 % positive if Arsenal actually spent 200 million on De Ligt, De Gea and whoever else, they still wouldn't make a CL final, let alone 2 in a row. Probably wouldn't even make top 4 in the league still.

They would probably need to spend an additional £243.7m though, to be 100% sure.

Klopp is now closer to Pep in the League than Pep is to Klopp in the CL.

You are also right, it's no contest at all. Pep would need to reach a final with City in the CL to start the conversation.

How, why?

 

[Mcking]

Football's all about "what have you done for me lately". Ask in any of the previous ten years and most people would say Guardiola. But now Klopp's image is untouchable. A lot of people is eager to deify certain managers once they have a great season; Heynckes is another example of this, he became a football god in 2013 despite having many "meh" seasons as a manager. Had Poch won the CL, this thread would be about Pep vs Poch with many people siding with the latter; it's funny how consistency rarely gets appreciated in the fan's minds.

Reading this thread, you'd think that league titles and anything that was done more than 15months ago does not matter anymore. I reckon if Pep won the UCL and Klopp won the EPL, the argument would be, 'but Pep couldn't win the league despite outspend everyone'.

 

[Pow]

I didn't know Guardiola only won the UCL because of Messi. Klopp has not won the UCL without Van Dijk too. Why didn't he win it without Van Dijk, and why hasn't Messi won it for Valverde?

Klopps got 3 back to back finals including 2 back to back cl finals something pep has never done. Hell when was his last semi even ??? Messi won the managerial god luis Enrique a treble wonder what he won before and after that ?

 

[adexkola]

People were saying that because, and I'm being completely serious here and I'm sure that most of the German fans would agree, that that Bayern team Pep inherited would most probably have won all three league titles even without a manager in charge. Plus I don't think that there are too many people doubting Pep's ability in the league IF he is given the by far best squad and/or unlimited money there.

The biggest stain in Pep's managerial career has always been his abysmal performances in the CL. I honestly cannot recall one single performance against an opponent that is even remotely close individually to the team he managed where Pep's team actually overperformed. Of course this year they have been unlucky, but the Spurs win wasn't even a huge fluke (like that Chelsea run under Matteo) and the final score was completely reasonable given the performances of both teams. It has been incredibly predictable in the last years such that I could honestly never imagine a team managed by Pep winning against an individually superior team. If you replayed the 2015 SF against Barca 10 times, I could never imagine him winning a tie just once.

I can't take your hyperbole seriously to be honest. A huge stain on his career? His abysmal record? He has 2 CLs. The same as Mourinho and Ferguson. One fewer than Paisley, Ancelotti and Zidane. The most a single manager has ever won is 3.

Regarding the Bayern tie against Barcelona he probably would lose the tie 10 times out of 10 because he had an injury hit squad facing peak MSN. Yeah Di Matteo could have probably fluked it in one simulation out of 10. So?

 

[adexkola]

Football's all about "what have you done for me lately". Ask in any of the previous ten years and most people would say Guardiola. But now Klopp's image is untouchable. A lot of people is eager to deify certain managers once they have a great season; Heynckes is another example of this, he became a football god in 2013 despite having many "meh" seasons as a manager. Had Poch won the CL, this thread would be about Pep vs Poch with many people siding with the latter; it's funny how consistency rarely gets appreciated in the fan's minds.

A conversation worthy of another thread, that one.

 

[Mcking]

Klopps got 3 back to back finals including 2 back to back cl finals something pep has never done. Hell when was his last semi even ??? Messi won the managerial god luis Enrique a treble wonder what he won before and after that ?

But Pep has won it twice though, while Klopp has won it once. You'd need some serious mental gymnastics to think that one is better than two. Why hasn't Messi won it for Valverde, and who was the one that won the double for managerial god Di Matteo?

 

[F-A-C-T-S]

If the team has unlimited resources and/or the best players then Pep is the go to guy. He'll make the team raise it's level to something it has never achieved before. He will play dominant attacking football and will not be outplayed by any team he faces. He will win trophies. He has thus far left after 3-4 years.

If the team operates within a budget, and lacks the resources to go head to head with much richer teams but is willing to give the manager time to build then Klopp is your man. He will get the team to play agressive attacking football. Every player will give 100% or be shipped out. He will achieve results which the personnel in his team have no business achieving. He will dominate much better players and teams in one off games. He will set up the club for years after his departure. He has thus far left after 7 years.

How can we argue that Pep is the better manager when Klopp's resume shows that he is the better fit for 99% of football clubs? Only a select few teams operate with near unlimited funds. Think of where AC Milan and Juventus are at now. Pep managing Juventus, and continuing to win Serie As and Klopp coming in at AC, building the team slowly. Beating Pep in one off games and after 3 seasons going head to head with Pep, despite spending much less money. Also delivering the most prestigious trophy in club football. Imo that was the gap between Liverpool and City and Klopp has bridged it in their respective times there. Whilst Pep has gotten an extra 4-5% from the quality of his players to make a 100 point squad.

We can't surely argue that trophies are the only important thing in the game. Otherwise most football clubs are pointless then since they will not compete for any most of the time. It also devalues the work of managers who are at smaller clubs which have no business winning any trophies. We have to give this context. Quality managerial work can be recognised without silverware. And quality managerial work without silverware can be more impressive than that of a manager winning a trophy. In my opinion the work Klopp has done with Liverpool is more impressive and surpasses what Pep has done with City.

Bring the gurning German buffoon to United right now and 100% guaranteed all the things we complain about United players , passion,giving your all for the badge, attractive football e.t.c will be history in less than a season and with our resources we'd easily compete with city in about 2 seasons. My friend told me when Liverpool got him, that he was the best manager in the world, I thought to myself that was bullshit. I agree with him now.

 

[JDoe]

I can't take your hyperbole seriously to be honest. A huge stain on his career? His abysmal record? He has 2 CLs. The same as Mourinho and Ferguson. One fewer than Paisley, Ancelotti and Zidane. The most a single manager has ever won is 3.

Regarding the Bayern tie against Barcelona he probably would lose the tie 10 times out of 10 because he had an injury hit squad facing peak MSN. Yeah Di Matteo could have probably fluked it in one simulation out of 10. So?

During his career, he has been managing a squad that was at least on par or better than any other pretty much every single year. This is a luxury that none of the managers you mentioned ever had. Why wouldn't it be a bad record if he only managed to win 2 CLs, especially when he has literally (deservedly) lost every single time he faced a half decent opponent in the CL knockout? I don't know why you'd bring up Di Matteo in that conversation, there are quite a few managers I'd think would deservedly win that matchup against MSN Barca at least twice, not by a fluke.

A huge part in assessing a manager's performance is, IMO of course, how he performs with the given squad and/or resources. I for myself cannot take people seriously that compare the first 7 years of a manager managing one of the clubs with the lowest budgets in the SECOND division with a manager that started his career by managing Barcelona , using trophies as assessment criteria, to be honest.

I didn't vote for any manager since it's impossible to know if Klopp could achieve the same league dominance as Pep with more money. In the CL however, as evident throughout their whole careers, it's not even a contest given the same budget and squads.

 

[Mastadon]

The question I would ask is if you could back 3-5 years or whenever it was these guys were available, would you rather have Klopp or Pep?

I would take Klopp at Arsenal I think he would be a perfect fit for our resource level.

 

[vkd]

Klopp hasn't won that much at all, so given that many, many coaches have, I don't see why Pep couldn't. There's a reason why Pep was wanted by those clubs in the first place. People in here were playing both sides of the argument with Man City, "Guardiola won't have it as easy as he did at Bayern" and then also "Haha, he didn't win as much as he did with Bayern" in that first season. Like, isn't that the same point?

I'll try to make this really simple. Guardiola would never be in the conversation for the big trophies with the resources that Klopp had in Dortmund and Liverpool. Like never. Ever.

 

[MackRobinson]

@MackRobinson, this has mostly being my argument:

We are not comparing only present day performance, are we? OP is not asking who had the better season.
There is not many tangible or intangible metrics that could be used that would put Klopp ahead Guardiola unless you can provide them. If you think that I'm not presenting a good argument, why not present a better one instead? By putting Poch, Guardiola and Klopp alongside each other based on what could happen, you have done nothing but conjecture and succeded in bringing nothing to the table.

So you must also think there is no tangible evidence that Klopp nor Poch are better than Mourinho since we are only supposed to add up trophies? Pep hasn't even been to a final of the CL since 2012, while having a squad that was a favorite every year after that. Why would anyone weight a trophy won 7 years ago the same as trophy won today, when discussing who is the better manager right now? Doesn't make any sense.

 

[KirkDuyt]

I'll try to make this really simple. Guardiola would never be in the conversation for the big trophies with the resources that Klopp had in Dortmund and Liverpool. Like never. Ever.

This is just speculation. It's the same argument as "Yeah but Messi would fail horribly in the Premier League". I doubt any manager in world football will ever win a premier league title with Leicester again, unless they get a take over. Doesn't mean Ranieri is the best coach of all time. IT's not like the coach is responsible for 80% of a team's success. They're just a small cog in a big chain. Some of them are good enough to really dictate the way their teams play in a recognizable fashion and in that Pep is miles ahead of Klopp (or anyone for that matter). As long as Klopp doesn't rival him in prizes won, he's not in the same catagory.

 

[He'sRaldo]

I wonder if someone could calculate some sort of "pounds spent per trophy" value for both Pep and Klopp in England, since people keep bringing up Pep's spending. If Pep does come out on top (which I feel he will), doesn't that mean he's actually making more use of his resources than Klopp?

 

[oggy boy]

Of course Pep is currently better. One has to convince me first that Klopp is better than Benitez, and after that that he is better than Ancelotti, Mourinho and some other coaches before even trying to compare him against Pep.
Comparing styles is personal preference, like comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing trophy-wise he is not even close to Pep.

Comparing how much they improved players is also boring, many coaches if not all improve their players.

Comparing money they spent is stupid, because coaches are not in the position to value the players, buy them or have such an influence on football market and inflation.

 

[JDoe]

This is just speculation. It's the same argument as "Yeah but Messi would fail horribly in the Premier League". I doubt any manager in world football will ever win a premier league title with Leicester again, unless they get a take over. Doesn't mean Ranieri is the best coach of all time. IT's not like the coach is responsible for 80% of a team's success. They're just a small cog in a big chain. Some of them are good enough to really dictate the way their teams play in a recognizable fashion and in that Pep is miles ahead of Klopp (or anyone for that matter). As long as Klopp doesn't rival him in prizes won, he's not in the same catagory.

Err no, it would be speculation like"Messi would win much less playing for Stoke" which, albeit it is speculation, is most probably true. Taking trophies as the sole metric is just extremely short sighted. You said it yourself, a manager is dependent on his players to win trophies. If you are Messi and for some reason decide to play for Brighton or Stoke your whole career, you can still be considered a better player than Bale playing for Madrid even if you won feck all. The same can be said about managers. A manager that can elevate a mid table club to a top 3 club and winning a non flukey champions league might be considered better than someone managing PSG winning all the league titles. This is all subjective, but to say that they have to win the same trophy count is just nonsense given the vast difference in player material.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Err no, it would be speculation like"Messi would win much less playing for Stoke" which, albeit it is speculation, is most probably true. Taking trophies as the sole metric is just extremely short sighted. You said it yourself, a manager is dependent on his players to win trophies. If you are Messi and for some reason decide to play for Brighton or Stoke your whole career, you can still be considered a better player than Bale playing for Madrid even if you won feck all. The same can be said about managers. A manager that can elevate a mid table club to a top 3 club and winning a non flukey champions league might be considered better than someone managing PSG winning all the league titles. This is all subjective, but to say that they have to win the same trophy count is just nonsense given the vast difference in player material.

This doesn't work at the absolute top level though. Especially since Guardiola is considered an all-time manager.

 

[JDoe]

I wonder if someone could calculate some sort of "pounds spent per trophy" value for both Pep and Klopp in England, since people keep bringing up Pep's spending. If Pep does come out on top (which I feel he will), doesn't that mean he's actually making more use of his resources than Klopp?

Pounds spent is also a very inaccurate metric. Someone taking over current City side probably wouldn't need to have spend a single pound in the next few years to still easily have one of the best squads in the league, whereas someone taking over Huddersfield would need significantly more to even have a chance at some minor trophy. That City squad is a billion pound squad currently

 

[JDoe]

This doesn't work at the absolute top level though. Especially since Guardiola is considered an all-time manager.

Please elaborate. I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Liverpool was far from a top level club in 2015, much more on Everton level, whereas City had one of, probably even the best squad in the league.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Please elaborate. I'm not sure I'm getting your point.

If a manager is overachieving among mid-table managers, then you could argue he's world-class. However, if another manager is overachieving among world-class managers, then it's a bit of a leap to say the mid-table manager is better than he is. That's my point. Klopp hasn't over-achieved among world-class managers yet, so in my view it's hard to put him above Pep.

A good analogy would be, just because Kane is overachieving with Spurs doesn't mean he's Messi and Ronaldo levels. That's what I mean by "it doesn't work at the highest level."

 

[KirkDuyt]

Err no, it would be speculation like"Messi would win much less playing for Stoke" which, albeit it is speculation, is most probably true. Taking trophies as the sole metric is just extremely short sighted. You said it yourself, a manager is dependent on his players to win trophies. If you are Messi and for some reason decide to play for Brighton or Stoke your whole career, you can still be considered a better player than Bale playing for Madrid even if you won feck all. The same can be said about managers. A manager that can elevate a mid table club to a top 3 club and winning a non flukey champions league might be considered better than someone managing PSG winning all the league titles. This is all subjective, but to say that they have to win the same trophy count is just nonsense given the vast difference in player material.

I didn't mean it to sound like I meant that you should judge them solely on prizes. My point was mostly, you don't know how Pep would do at Liverpool or how Klopp would do at Barcelona and saying Pep would never win a CL at Liverpool is speculation. We simply don't know.

 

[Stocar]

It's not really about trophies. Managers like Pochettino or Sarri are obviously brilliant even if they haven't won much. And cup trophies especially shouldn't be measure of anything, as they usually nothing more than a glorified lottery in a sport such as football. It's about quality of football and consistency. And currently Guardiola is the best when it comes to that.

There are few managers out there that will consistently produce great football (although usually reactive and very physical) within a budget. Klopp, Simeone and Pochettino as arguably best examples in recent times. But there is only one that has shown that he is able to produce sustained excellence when expectations are highest possible, without comfort of the underdog role. All flavor of the day coaches have eventually failed when they found themselves in that position. Guardiola is the only one that always delivers.

But football fans have short memory, and love for cheap romanticism and plucky underdog. It is ridiculous to suggest that other coaches would easily replicate Guardiola's success if they were in his position. History has shown that there is a limit to how far reactive, fighting football can get when you're at the top of the food chain. If anything, I think Guardiola is the one who wouldn't have trouble replicating success of these coaches if he had to work under the budget. He has the same kind of passion and charisma, which are the main things that distinguish top coaches. But he also has more inventivess and imagination, which separates him from the rest.

 

[JDoe]

I didn't mean it to sound like I meant that you should judge them solely on prizes. My point was mostly, you don't know how Pep would do at Liverpool or how Klopp would do at Barcelona and saying Pep would never win a CL at Liverpool is speculation. We simply don't know.

I'd agree, albeit to think that Pep would suddenly perform better with much worse squads and suddenly win the CL is very, very unlikely. I'm not saying that Klopp would perform better with better fundings and more star players, but in comparison this is more realistic, IMO. Pep's league performances have always been incredibly consistent and have always met the (league) expectations of the squads he had, no doubt about that.

 

[Stocar]

I'd agree, albeit to think that Pep would suddenly perform better with much worse squads and suddenly win the CL is very, very unlikely. I'm not saying that Klopp would perform better with better fundings and more star players, but in comparison this is more realistic, IMO.

From what history has shown, it's exactly the opposite. There were many coaches who were great when working under the budget, but showed limitations when given abundant resources. That's what makes Guardiola exceptional, and it's very likely that he would also be able to overachieve in a position where there is less resources, but also less pressure, with some important psychological advantages added in.

 

[JDoe]

From what history has shown, it's exactly the opposite. There were many coaches who were great when working under the budget, but showed limitations when given abundant resources. That's what makes Guardiola exceptional, and it's very likely that he would also be able to overachieve in a position where there is less resources, but more of certain psychological advantages that are very important in sport.

Actually most star coaches have been successful on a budget before they moved to a big club and replicated their performances there. Guardiola is one of the very few coaches that started at a big club and not managed a single non-top club in his whole career.

 

[Stocar]

Actually most star coaches have been successful on a budget before they moved to a big club and replicated their performances there. Guardiola is one of the very few coaches that started at a big club and not managed a single non-top club in his whole career.

Which coach has consistently produced that kind of excellence at the highest level, with a distinct footballing vision and style?

 

[JDoe]

Which coach has consistently produced that kind of excellence at the highest level, with a distinct footballing vision and style?

I'm not denying that, albeit mainly because I cannot recall a single coach that started their career managing a top tier club and then moving to another two clubs who were either the best (Bayern after treble) or the richest, in terms of possible transfer fundings, club (City) in the world. Maybe Zidane? He had only managed Madrid for 3 full seasons until now, and already won 3 CLs in a row plus a league title? That's arguably as successful as Pep was when he managed Barcelona and I wouldn't rank Zidane anywhere near the best managers.

 

[Stocar]

I'm not denying that, albeit mainly because I cannot recall a single coach that started their career managing a top tier club and then moving to another two clubs who were either the best (Bayern after treble) or the richest, in terms of possible transfer fundings, club (City) in the world. Maybe Zidane? He had only managed Madrid for 3 full seasons until now, and already won 3 CLs in a row plus a league title? That's arguably as successful as Pep was when he managed Barcelona and I wouldn't rank Zidane anywhere near the best managers.

Credit to Zidane for winning all those European trophies, but did his team really produce a dominant and consistent football as Guardiola regularly does? Not even close. And again, despite all mythology, cup competitions in this sport are mostly a glorified lottery.

You cannot recall a single coach that had produced excellence and consistency at the same rate as Guardiola, simply because there hasn't been one. And there were many of them at the top clubs with great resources.

 

[DoneDaDa]

I believe there is a little disservice here to both managers and some silly arguments.

You can't compare Pep trophies cabinet to Kloppo because of the teams they've managed Peo has gone to team who always compete and win titles, while Kloppo has taken team that are more or less struggling a little. So it's silly to make that argument.

Likewise you can't knock Pep trophy cabinet either. He's won 27 titles in 3 different leagues in 10 season of coaching almost averaging 3 titles a season. Only Barcelona have won more then him since he started coaching (they have 29) and it won't be surprising that in the next 2-3 season he gets more then them that is quite impressive and outrageous if you ask him.

Xabi Alonso who's been managed by Rafa, Mou, Carlo, del Bosque has said that Pep was the best manager to have coached him. Even guys who hate him like Mino, Ibra and Eto'o have praised him as a coach/manager they just don't like him as a person lawl

I mean just maybe at the end of the day he's a world class coach, not some nobody.

Kloppo is also amazing love the guys attitude and work and he's really creating something special at Pool and I'm happy to have seen him win a CL. But as of right now he simply isn't in the category as a top 10 manager of all time.

 

[Infordin]

Which coach has consistently produced that kind of excellence at the highest level, with a distinct footballing vision and style?

As amazing as Pep’s football is aesthetically, I honestly think that when he goes up against another team with equal quality, he often loses because of it.

Pep ball is perfect at destroying teams with lesser players but is often found wanting against equal opposition. That’s one of the big reasons why Pep has struggled in the CL recently imo.

I always think back to Bayern vs Real in 2014. Bayern and Real were very evenly matched when they played in 2012, 2017 and 2018. These games were decided by the finest margins or a conventional red card. In 2014, when Pep was managing Bayern, he got slapped on the counterattack as his teams do so often. Pep had a fully fit Bayern squad at his disposal that was absolutely stacked with world class talent.

I do not know Pep’s record against Klopp but I imagine it is a losing one.

 

[GM K]

Pep and Klopp are the two best managers out there if you ask me. But my vote will go to Klopp in choosing the better manager. For me, he has worked with less resources but produced outstanding results.

 

[RobinLFC]

As amazing as Pep’s football is aesthetically, I honestly think that when he goes up against another team with equal quality, he often loses because of it.

Pep ball is perfect at destroying teams with lesser players but is often found wanting against equal opposition. That’s one of the big reasons why Pep has struggled in the CL recently imo.

I always think back to Bayern vs Real in 2014. Bayern and Real were very evenly matched when they played in 2012, 2017 and 2018. These games were decided by the finest margins or a conventional red card. In 2014, when Pep was managing Bayern, he got slapped on the counterattack as his teams do so often. Pep had a fully fit Bayern squad at his disposal that was absolutely stacked with world class talent.

I do not know Pep’s record against Klopp but I imagine it is a losing one.

P18 - W7 L9 D2 apparently.

 

[giorno]

As amazing as Pep’s football is aesthetically, I honestly think that when he goes up against another team with equal quality, he often loses because of it.

He often loses because of his tendency to overthink things. Best in the world at outsmarting himself

I always think back to Bayern vs Real in 2014. Bayern and Real were very evenly matched when they played in 2012, 2017 and 2018.

Well you sure don't remember them though

2017 was the only one that was actually evenly matched. 2012 was close but they were clearly better and as for 2018,

I too often think of that PSG would have been proud

 

[giorno]

P18 - W7 L9 D2 apparently.

Take away the games that didn't matter though and he comes out ahead

On the other hand given the disparity in quality of the teams the h2h being close looks a lot better for Klopp than Guardiola