Pep made City favorites every season, that wasn't the case before he went there.
And he's dominated the PL the way Jose didn't/couldn't, he's definitely a bigger success at City than Jose was at Chelsea.
If Pep leaves City without winning the CL, would he have been a success or failure?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
And he's dominated the PL the way Jose didn't/couldn't, he's definitely a bigger success at City than Jose was at Chelsea.
The Champions League is a cup competition at the end of the day. The best team can have an off day and get knocked out. The worst team gets all the luck and somehow progress despite getting their ass kicked. The two clear best teams get drawn against each other in the first round and one of them has to go etc.
I wouldnt say its wholly a failure but it’ll be a negative point, especially the money he’d have had at his disposal as well as the owners moving heaven and earth to accommodate him. I don’t think any club in the world could go as far as hiring Barcelona board members to go with getting Guardiola.
I do think though if Guardiola wins the CL this season, then 2 minutes later after the final whistle goes, he’s handing in his notice and leaving that summer. He strikes me as a person who’ll do that. That’ll be seen as ‘mission accomplished’ to him and taking another sabbatical.
I wouldnt say its wholly a failure but it’ll be a negative point, especially the money he’d have had at his disposal as well as the owners moving heaven and earth to accommodate him. I don’t think any club in the world could go as far as hiring Barcelona board members to go with getting Guardiola.
I do think though if Guardiola wins the CL this season, then 2 minutes later after the final whistle goes, he’s handing in his notice and leaving that summer. He strikes me as a person who’ll do that. That’ll be seen as ‘mission accomplished’ to him and taking another sabbatical.
The thread is referring to his time at City, so that's what I was referring to as well.
Success? Yes, but not exceptional. The same for his time at Bayern. He successfully dominated the leagues while being able to outspend everyone else. That's good, but to be great he would have needed to win a CL.
So far he didn't and a lot of CL losses are tied to weird decisions he made. It's usually not abot bad luck in his case, but about his ideas not working on the highest level.
So far he didn't and a lot of CL losses are tied to weird decisions he made. It's usually not abot bad luck in his case, but about his ideas not working on the highest level.
Agree with a lot of this except for
"I wouldnt say its wholly a failure but it’ll be a negative point, especially the money he’d have had at his disposal as well as the owners moving heaven and earth to accommodate him.."
If we discount the tired relativist clichés such as "sport was the real winner,", and "its the taking part rather than the winning that counts" and so on, football at the end of the day, is a matter of the binary. You either win or you fail to win. Getting to the champions league semifinals or the final and losing it, is wholly a failure to win it.
If Pep does not win the champions league then he will have failed to do so.
Considering the team Pep inherited and the amount of money flung at Pep and the City project "as well as the owners moving heaven and earth to accommodate him.." that failure is pretty blatant and drastic.
Footballistic orgasm
"Pep made City favorites every season, that wasn't the case before he went there..."
City being favourites every season and yet continously failing to win only highlights Pep's failure.
Last edited:
Ok, that's 6 years so far v 20+ years for Ferguson then. If Pep manages City for 20+ years and doesn't win the CL then it will definitely be a failure.
It mostly highlights the fact that he's made them a powerhouse.
Basically every coach including Zidane (who's won the CL 3x) says that winning the league is more difficult than winning the CL because it shows more consistency, and the best teams don't always win cup competitions because of different variables that to be considered in a cup tie.
This is why no other coach will be asking himself if Pep is a success at City with or without a CL title, they'll probably all laugh at the taught of the question because the answer seems so evident.
All those league titles, has to be a huge success. The CL is really a tough one.
Huge success, particularly in the modern era where the cycles seem shorter lived.
SAF 'only' won 2 CLs in 26 years. Would that be classed as success or failure? He himself regrets not winning more in Europe with such a dominant domestic side, which shows just how much the stars need to align to win it.
SAF 'only' won 2 CLs in 26 years. Would that be classed as success or failure? He himself regrets not winning more in Europe with such a dominant domestic side, which shows just how much the stars need to align to win it.
It also can be seen as him not being the best cup manager, which I think is a reasonable take (and actually similar to Guardiola).
Nope. It's very simple. Guardiola has succeeded to win the domestic league but has failed every year to win the champions league.
So he's been an obvious success domestically but an equally blatant failure, for the UAE project, in the champions league.
Like I said, its as simple as that, very easy to understand, it ain't rocket science.
Last edited:
This is a very simplistic view though, but to each his own.
If winning is only way of viewing success, then i 90% of managers are failures.
He's still only 51. I'd give him another few years and remember that not all managers with shaved heads are bald frauds.
For the club that has the biggest budget that statement is true. That doesn't apply for most managers, so most managers don't have to be judged by that standard. But whoever manages City has to get wins in all competitions, if he has several years time, otherwise he isn't a full success.
Nope not simplistic.
It's pretty simple really, ( simple does not imply simplistic btw), football competitions are all about the winning.
Pep has not won the Champions league for the UAE project. He has failed to do so. Thus far his City project team have failed to win the champions league every year. So yes he's a failure, unfortunately, in that regard.
See how you oversimplified my point? Pep's run in CL while at City wasn't bad because he did not win the CL. It was very bad because his team lost against much weaker opposition consistently. Can you tell me how many managers in your list had runs such as Pep's at City?
Footballing heritage.
He walked in to a team already full of stars and had won a league before. Then got an open chequebook to improve on said squad, backed up by transfer specialists that largely saw through dealings early on with very little drama.
It's a success but not a particularly noteworthy one in my opinion. Klopp the greater manager.
He walked in to a team already full of stars and had won a league before. Then got an open chequebook to improve on said squad, backed up by transfer specialists that largely saw through dealings early on with very little drama.
It's a success but not a particularly noteworthy one in my opinion. Klopp the greater manager.
Yeah I think this is a good point. To me he’s obviously a success, and being able to win the league with overwhelming resources one time is easy, but consistently is hard. He obviously earns respect from the very best players and challenges them to reach that level over and over again. We’ve seen Mourinho teams fall apart in the way Guardiola doesn’t, seemingly because he’s a bit of a psycho who’s able to just place relentless demands on himself and his team.
At the same time, you can see his fingerprints all over the CL losses. It’s really not about luck when he consistently makes bold decisions that backfire. He overthinks those games somehow, maybe because he’s realised his way of playing in the league doesn’t translate well to cup football against the very best, or maybe just because he just loses his nerve.
I don’t think a cup winner is any more impressive than a league winner, and it’s obvious some managers are better at one or the other. Sir Alex was not a good cup manager.
At the end of the day Guardiola is the ideal manager to get for a league team with strong foundations in place. He will win more trophies, more consistently than anyone else. He might not be as good at getting challengers to temporarily rise above their station (Klopp), or build a dynasty (Sir Alex), or rule cup football (Ancelotti), but the idea that you can easily place a value on those elements seems a bit silly to me. Guardiola is the best at what he does.
Bayern, Barca, Madrid, Chelsea, Man United, Juventus, PSG all have as much spending power as City.
The only much weaker team they lost to was Monaco and Tottenham to a much lesser degree.
The only world class player on that team was (and still is) Debruyne.
This is only true against Liverpool IMO, some may argue against Chelsea too but IMO that final loss wasn't due to him not playing Rodri or Fernandinho. The other losses weren't due to bold choices. Or should he have played in place of Sterling against Lyon or Grealish against Madrid? Or should he have taken the penalty in place of Aguero against Tottenham?
It's very simplistic to say his responsible for all the losses IMO, his bold choices are always talked about when they lose when they actually work 9 times out of 10.
To be fair he bottled it against lyon two but it seemed the team lacked fitness so I'll it go.
Yes they were supposed to beat Lyon. But what could he have done regarding the occasion Sterling missed though? And just few seconds after that miss, Lyon scores a 3rd goal that IMO should have been disallowed.
The situations aren't always just black or white, saying it is just to blame Pep for every defeat is very simplistic.
@footballistic orgasm you go over such minute details in City games that I bet even Pep wouldn't remember, you're definitely a massive City supporter, should be honest be yourself and change your profile details. "No team in particular" makes me laugh.
Obvious City fan, it's hilarious how many posters with "Neutral" in their support section always defend Liverpool or City.
Just no.
A success but with a few raised eyebrows over the money spent/the squad he inherited/only having one rival throughout his time. CL success requires a certain amount of luck so not winning it is never really a proper criticism.
He’d be a success with an asterisk next to it.
I get it might be a difficult concept for the both of you to be objective sometimes, or maybe it's only when it has to do with City or Liverpool. No i'm not a City supporter (or any other club for that matter), but I'm a big fan of how Pep makes his teams play (i watched Bayern and Barca a lot too) which is why you'll notice me defending Pep more than I'll defend City as a club.
Great reply. Because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make it any less true though.
Supporting no club (whatever that means) and getting premature ejaculations from watching Pepball equals objectivism.
I've never met someone in real life that likes football but does not support a team. An internet phenomenon? We are lucky to be able to draw upon the purely objective viewpoint of such stoics.
In my opinion Pep is a huge success, unfortunately. He's a weirdo, a very strange man. But he's made a massive impact on English football beyond the trophies, he's had a fair degree of domination over the league and within matches. He's cocked up the CL at times through his own fault, it's not always been bad luck due to a cup competition, but for me the league is always your baseline.
In my opinion Pep is a huge success, unfortunately. He's a weirdo, a very strange man. But he's made a massive impact on English football beyond the trophies, he's had a fair degree of domination over the league and within matches. He's cocked up the CL at times through his own fault, it's not always been bad luck due to a cup competition, but for me the league is always your baseline.
Huge success, how many coaches regardless of spending power have 4 Pl titles to their name.
He has pretty much dominated English football which is the hardest league to do so. So yes he’s been a massive success. I don’t reckon he will leave without winning CL.
He's gone back to back in the league twice, and let's be fair here that Liverpool side for a couple years was a monster so it's more impressive in my humble opinion.
Sure if he doesn't win the big one it'll be a mark against him but it's still success.
Sure if he doesn't win the big one it'll be a mark against him but it's still success.
Anyone would have said Barcelona Pep would have won a CL for any team he managed.
Now he has failed at winning CL’s at Bayern and potentially City at the end of the season - it shows to me how accurately a player or manager outside their comfort zone is the best way to measure a personals ability or potential.
An absolutely fantastic manager and one of the greatest on a league level but could do better in the CL.
Now he has failed at winning CL’s at Bayern and potentially City at the end of the season - it shows to me how accurately a player or manager outside their comfort zone is the best way to measure a personals ability or potential.
An absolutely fantastic manager and one of the greatest on a league level but could do better in the CL.
You can say I lack objectivity if i said Pep was faultless, but good thing I never said that right?
You're the one here trying to paint things as either black or white.
This is actually more common than you think. Football to me is just entertainment and nothing more than that (basically like the way i enjoy movies, but i watch more football than films), i can't see myself putting my emotions into a club/institution i personally have nothing to gain from.
Probably all of them, seeing as each guy would have managed for about 20 years on average and won the Champions League only once or twice. I know Fergie, the common consensus GOAT (and rightfully so), had several terrible results in the Champions League against weak teams that United should have beaten. That's the nature of a cup competition.
Yeah but when it's Fergie or Don Carlo or Heynekes, their stumbles in the competition are explained away with heavy dollops of nuance (foreigner rule/shit happens/players didn't convert, the manager can't actually force his team to score)... Of course when you bring such nuance into this thread you get accused of being a City fan...
Give it a rest. You're fooling no one but yourself.
You're a fan boy of the UAE project. You couldn't make it any more obvious
