That's an assumption. Again, why shouldn't his methods at least impact the positioning, movement, counter pressing, and all the over off the ball stuff of his team?The huge turnover of players at City shows that he requires specific players and he either cant, or doesn't bother, trying to coach the others. Just gets rid and buys somebody new. 50 players in 7 years, almost a whole new team every summer. You can't do that anywhere other than City.
Indeed. Pep can win 5/6 CL (the most in history) and win 14/15 league titles, across 3 of the 4 biggest leagues in the world, but he will never be top 3 because he didn't do it against the odds? Got it.nop.
For him to be considered in top 3 coaches then he has to prove that he can overcome adversity. he has not done that.
Pick any great coach of last 100 years, each & every one of them proved they can go and win against all odds.
Pep's teams always have odds with them. No Bueno
I wouldn't call the likes of Sterling, Delph, Akanji, Ake, Sane, Ortamendi specific Pep players. Yet, he's gotten 100 points with Orta and Delph in his backbone, and won a treble with Ake and Akanji. Pepcan work with different types of players these days. Who would have thought that Haaland was a Pep type player?The huge turnover of players at City shows that he requires specific players and he either cant, or doesn't bother, trying to coach the others. Just gets rid and buys somebody new. 50 players in 7 years, almost a whole new team every summer. You can't do that anywhere other than City.
I don't get your point. We won the treble using a cohort from our academy - some of who grew up in Manchester, and on top of that a British core when you factor in the likes of Keane, Irwin, etc. There's an organic, authentic feel with winning in that way rather than importing talent at the cost of £750m.I don’t think that is a valid comparison as United benefited from a once in a generation academy cohort. How much would it have cost United to buy Giggs, Scholes and Beckham?
It's not an assumption that he has bought significantly more players than other top level managers in a similar time frame. It's not an assumption that when he doesn't have the perfect players for his system that his system doesn't work.That's an assumption. Again, why shouldn't his methods at least impact the positioning, movement, counter pressing, and all the over off the ball stuff of his team?
And as said, there are other teams with at least comparable spending, including United.
Nobody is acting like that. People are acting like the reality, which was: Barcelona had averaged 71.5 points in the league in the two seasons before Guardiola took over.And? They still finished 3rd in La Liga and remained unbeaten in the CL until the semis. I already said we were by far the best team they faced. Still, I would like to know how many teams finished at least 3rd in their league and remained unbeaten until CL semis, easy run or not. Barca 08 were no world beaters but people are acting as if they were a team which occasionally qualified for the CL whereas in reality they won the league and CL in 2006 and reached the CL semi in 2008.
There is, in fact, another big assumption here: that Guardiola is regularly casting off players. Where is the evidence for that?It's not an assumption that when he doesn't have the perfect players for his system that his system doesn't work. Maybe he cant coach the cast offs, maybe he cant be bothered to try because he has an unlimited transfer budget to replace them. That's the only assumption.
Mathematics.There is, in fact, another big assumption here: that Guardiola is regularly casting off players. Where is the evidence for that?
That's never been the case so you are only theorizing - which makes this an assumption. And your arguments for it aren't very convincing to be honest. Buying and selling many players alone doesn't mean he couldn't do without that.It's not an assumption that he has bought significantly more players than other top level managers in a similar time frame. It's not an assumption that when he doesn't have the perfect players for his system that his system doesn't work.
Maybe he cant coach the cast offs, maybe he cant be bothered to try because he has an unlimited transfer budget to replace them. That's the only assumption.
By that “logic” reaching CL semis however in 2008 as a La Liga team was, in fact, quite good as Real Madrid - repeatedly getting knocked out in the round of 16 - showed in the same period.Nobody is acting like that. People are acting like the reality, which was: Barcelona had averaged 71.5 points in the league in the two seasons before Guardiola took over.
Finishing 3rd in La Liga in 2008 was, in fact, quite bad. They finished 10 points behind Villareal.
SAF is the obvious GOAT in my humble opinion. I love that man to bits. However that requirement of going to a smaller team and winning with them seems a bit too generic for me. What exactly would you have him do? Win the champions league with it? Should he win the premier league with it given that Ranieri did same with Leicester? Also how many times should he win it seeing that Di Matteo (his honorable counterpart won it once)? Then how many years would you give him to build his team before he can compete for the titles? I ask because all I hear is Klopp gave Liverpool UCL and premier league victory which is correct without the added context that he had to do some major team reshuffling for 4 years before that became possible.Until Pep goes to a smaller team and has them winning or competing in Europe, it'll always be SAF. It's an absolute cringe to suggest otherwise FFS.
Exactly my point. When you look at what Arteta produced this season with Arsenal you cannot help but appreciate that Pep knows his footy. There were times they were playing us and Liverpool and other big teams off the park.That's a theory. We've seen similar systems being implemented by teams with lesser quality, this season e. g. Napoli.
Most things Guardiola coaches don't require the best players. You don't need to be worldclass to occupy the right positions, counterpress, make the required runs, etc. It is as much about what you do when you don't have the ball as it is when you have it.
Well yeah of course our squad is going to be costing less, and that is partly because we produced such a big chunk of it through our own academy. Which was precisely the point to begin with.
I don't get your point. We won the treble using a cohort from our academy - some of who grew up in Manchester, and on top of that a British core when you factor in the likes of Keane, Irwin, etc. There's an organic, authentic feel with winning in that way rather than importing talent at the cost of £750m.
Yes he has the best squad because he made them the best. Bayern have got Neuer, Upemecano, De Ligt, Hernandez, Davies, Kimmich, Coman, Musiala, Muller, Sane, Gnarbry, Mane, etc. I think Bayern is seriously underachieving with all the players they have.Easily the best squad in Premiership / Europe at this point. No way he wins Premiership with United let alone CL.
That's not mathematics, it's vibes.Mathematics. He is buying more players per season than comparable managers like Klopp. As squad sizes are limited, those players he is replacing all have to go somewhere. It's not a stretch to believe is it? When you think of how many full backs he's been through at City.
Look man, you can believe what you want. It's your life. But "Barcelona were actually quite good before Pep got his grubby little hands on them" isn't going to get you anywhere with anyone who was watching Barcelona back then or following La Liga.By that “logic” reaching CL semis however in 2008 as a La Liga team was, in fact, quite good as Real Madrid - repeatedly getting knocked out in the round of 16 - showed in the same period.
I'm not going to suggest they were great but anyone who watched our semi final against them would tell you the team had enormous quality in it, though obviously weren't consistentLook man, you can believe what you want. It's your life. But "Barcelona were actually quite good before Pep got his grubby little hands on them" isn't going to get you anywhere with anyone who was watching Barcelona back then or following La Liga.
Easy to argue your point if you only include half the players he has signed at City...That's not mathematics, it's vibes.
The players signed under him (with x next to their name if they're still in the club roster)
Ederson (x)
Dias (x)
Gundogan (x)
Walker (x)
Silva (x)
Stones (x)
Laporte (x)
Mahrez (x)
Rodri (x)
Grealish (x)
Akanji (x)
Haaland (x)
Phillips (x)
Ake (x)
Mendy
Sane
Zinchenko
Gabriel Jesus
Joao Cancelo
Ferran Torres
Zach Steffen
Nolito
Angeliño
Bravo
Danilo
14 out of 25 signings are still at the club. The ones who aren't: Zinchenko, Gabriel Jesus, Sane, Torres all chose to leave. Cancelo had disciplinary issues of some kind. Steffen is just a backup GK (and is still technically at the club). Mendy is still at the club but I'm not gonna count him. Him, Danilo, Bravo, Angeliño, were all moved on.
Some of the departed players had long stints, Sane was there 3 years (really 4 but the whole injury thing is misleading), Cancelo 3.5, Jesus 6, Zinchenko 5.
As for departing players, many left because they were getting older or were past it (Demichelis, Nasi, Mangala, Touré, Silva, Aguero, Kompany, Otamendi, Delph). Some were simply not good enough. Sterling left for money/gametime.
Please post the other 25 players that he signed for City (that actually played a match for City and were part of the squad, and not a dodgy deal).Easy to argue your point if you only include half the players he has signed at City...
I think it’s just a coping mechanism for fans who don’t want to face up to the reality that City have the best coach in the business, one of the best in history and he’s leading them to great success, unparalleled success if they win the title again next season.I don't even know why people continue to overrate this City team in terms of individuals and continue this argument of 'perfect players' for his system.
Most of the City players before they arrived never played in a positional play system nor were many thought of as perfect players for Guardiola. And almost every treble winning team in the past has better individual players.
There were plenty of people on here who thought Haaland would make them worse. Scoffed at Grealish. Stones was constantly memed on here. No one thinks of Akanji as a world beater.
Well Madrid were doing better in the league than Barca, but Barca still finished 2nd and 3rd, and before that 1st twice. But Barca were doing much better than Madrid in Europe. Between 2006 and 2008 they won it once and reached another semi. That’s called success in Europe. They were already one of the most successful sides both domestically and in Europe in the years before Pep joined them. That’s undeniable based on their league and CL showings between 2006 and 08.Look man, you can believe what you want. It's your life. But "Barcelona were actually quite good before Pep got his grubby little hands on them" isn't going to get you anywhere with anyone who was watching Barcelona back then or following La Liga.
Your logic is backward. What you'd actually get if you followed your logic is that Real Madrid back then were very good since they won consecutive league titles and were finishing 2nd in the league otherwise. But they were not very good.
It's easy to make selective arguments.Barca still finished 2nd and 3rd, and before that 1st twice. But Barca were doing much better than Madrid in Europe. Between 2006 and 2008 they won it once and reached another semi. That’s called success in Europe. They were already one of the most successful sides both domestically and in Europe in the years before Pep joined them. That’s undeniable based on their league and CL showings between 2006 and 08.
You didn’t think this one through. And not only because Chelsea won’t even be in the CL next season, so no idea how they could make it into the CL QF when they won’t even be in it. Barca’s 2008 team and coach made sure they would be in the CL the following season.It's easy to make selective arguments.
Here's one: Chelsea won the Champions League 2 years ago, and made it to the QFs the last two years, both times losing to 'CL experts' Real Madrid. In the Premier League, which is much more competitive than La Liga, they finished 3rd last season and 4th the previous one, a mere 2 points off 3rd.
Ergo Chelsea are one of the most successful sides domestically and in Europe and their next manager, Mauricio Pochettino, should be expected to finish at least in 2nd place and make it to the CL QFs at least. No?
True, at the same time this CL is probably one of the weakest it's been in ages. Real Madrid are way past their best (they jammies their way last year). Who else is there? PSG are worse than they once were. Bayern limped to the Bundesliga.I don't even know why people continue to overrate this City team in terms of individuals and continue this argument of 'perfect players' for his system.
Most of the City players before they arrived never played in a positional play system nor were many thought of as perfect players for Guardiola. And almost every treble winning team in the past has better individual players.
There were plenty of people on here who thought Haaland would make them worse. Scoffed at Grealish. Stones was constantly memed on here. No one thinks of Akanji as a world beater.
The 'he had it easy' argument with Barcelona is made only in hindsight. They were terrible under Rijkaard the previous season. Yes, they got to the semi-finals of the CL, but cup competition progress isn't the best barometer for team strength. It's still a 38 game league season that best showcases team strength and they were putrid in La Liga that season.The starting lineup that won Barcelona the CL in 2006 was Valdés, Oleguer, van Brockhorst, Puyol, Marquez, Deco, Edmilson, van Bommel, Guily, Eto'o, and Ronaldinho. That is quite clearly not the team that Guardiola managed to a sextuple, so whether Barcelona won the CL in 2006 tells us nothing about whether he 'had it easy' when he took over.
This totally sums up my feelings. City don't have the same kind of downturns other sides have because of their money so they'll always be in contention for the champions league, and when it's a year like this, without another world class side they're clear favourites, but I don't even think this is the best version of city we've seen, when they got 198 points in two seasons, that team was stronger, beating klopp's 18/19 Liverpool is something this team wouldn't manage over a seasonTrue, at the same time this CL is probably one of the weakest it's been in ages. Real Madrid are way past their best (they jammies their way last year). Who else is there? PSG are worse than they once were. Bayern limped to the Bundesliga.
A team like the 2015 era Bayern wipes the floor with this City side. He'll even the 2021 Chelsea side would beat this City side again.
Above all what City have are consistency, both due to their manager and their ability to sign and replace whoever they want to keep a big squad. So when eras do occur with poor European competition, they can capitalise. Hell AC and Inter were two of the semi finalists.. probably the worst semi pair in terms of quality since Shake - United in 2011.
It's not a requirement for me. It's just when I look the all time great managers such as SAF, Sir Matt Busby, Bill Shankly, Brian Clough etc they all have unbelievable stories in their careers. SAF breaking the old firm dominance and winning a European trophy with Aberdeen is a pure fairy-tale story that Aberdeen fans to this day can't believe happened. I'm not even going to mention what he done at United. Clough won two European Cups with Nottingham Forrest. Sir Matt Busby tragically lost members of his squad and nearly died himself then was able to rebuild the club from scratch again and lift the European Cup 10 years on. Bill Shankly built Liverpool up to being the most dominant side in Europe then left an unbelievable team to his succesor. These are unbelievable football stories. Hell even Mourinho has the CL win with Porto and Klopp has a great story with Dortmund then the rebuild of Liverpool and turning them into PL/CL winners.SAF is the obvious GOAT in my humble opinion. I love that man to bits. However that requirement of going to a smaller team and winning with them seems a bit too generic for me. What exactly would you have him do? Win the champions league with it? Should he win the premier league with it given that Ranieri did same with Leicester? Also how many times should he win it seeing that Di Matteo (his honorable counterpart won it once)? Then how many years would you give him to build his team before he can compete for the titles? I ask because all I hear is Klopp gave Liverpool UCL and premier league victory which is correct without the added context that he had to do some major team reshuffling for 4 years before that became possible.
Exactly my point. When you look at what Arteta produced this season with Arsenal you cannot help but appreciate that Pep knows his footy. There were times they were playing us and Liverpool and other big teams off the park.
You missed the point.You didn’t think this one through. And not only because Chelsea won’t even be in the CL next season, so no idea how they could make it into the CL QF when they won’t even be in it.
Again: you keep saying this like it's a good thing. It isn't. Barcelona finished the league with 67 points. That is the 5th worst point tally that Barcelona or Real Madrid have gotten in the 21st century. 41 out of 46. They finished 10 points behind Villareal. It is shit.Barca’s in the 4 years before Pep: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
Ok, if you say so. I have already said everything regarding Barca in the years before Pep. I won’t repeat it again.You missed the point.
It's a selective argument. It's built by simply pretending that their abysmal league season never happened. Which is what you all are doing with Barcelona.
Again: you keep saying this like it's a good thing. It isn't. Barcelona finished the league with 67 points. That is the 5th worst point tally that Barcelona or Real Madrid have gotten in the 21st century. 41 out of 46. They finished 10 points behind Villareal. It is shit.
Trying to pass this off as good, as if Barcelona "did their job by qualifying for the CL", is simply not serious.
Then why would these owners from the Sheikhs, Abramovic or the Bayern hierarchy choose him specifically and promise to build their entire club around him and his needs?Give any random premier league manger a billion to spend and an entire coaching setup tailored made for you then they'll probably win a fair few things. Maybe not as many as Pep, but they'd win a few.
Second sentenceThen why would these owners from the Sheikhs, Abramovic or the Bayern hierarchy choose him specifically and promise to build their entire club around him and his needs?
The same thing that was released in 2009 and sort of remains to this day, although less now: romanticism.Then why would these owners from the Sheikhs, Abramovic or the Bayern hierarchy choose him specifically and promise to build their entire club around him and his needs?
I actually think that's fair. It's why I think no one can be the greatest. The job has changed so much down the years and is very different from one country to another. Managers in Britain up until a decade or two ago were tasked with handling the entire footballing operation of a club which was of course significantly more manageable when clubs were smaller in size and resources. Their job consisted mainly for identifying the right players, putting them in the right position and motivating them to extract the best out of them. In the continent and recently in the PL, clubs have become huge entities with resources of a small country. No one could do the same job anymore and the manager is a head coach tasked with more specific assignment. They have less to do organisationally but much more to do on the training pitch. They go in more details in how to setup and where everybody moves and stands. Pep's skillset would not be sufficient 30 or 40 years ago but again, Shankly's skillset would be wasted and he would not have what's required in terms of micro tactics to live with the requirements of today. No one is better or worse than the other which is why all of them are greats being able to stand out in the needs of their era.It's not a requirement for me. It's just when I look the all time great managers such as SAF, Sir Matt Busby, Bill Shankly, Brian Clough etc they all have unbelievable stories in their careers. SAF breaking the old firm dominance and winning a European trophy with Aberdeen is a pure fairy-tale story that Aberdeen fans to this day can't believe happened. I'm not even going to mention what he done at United. Clough won two European Cups with Nottingham Forrest. Sir Matt Busby tragically lost members of his squad and nearly died himself then was able to rebuild the club from scratch again and lift the European Cup 10 years on. Bill Shankly built Liverpool up to being the most dominant side in Europe then left an unbelievable team to his succesor. These are unbelievable football stories. Hell even Mourinho has the CL win with Porto and Klopp has a great story with Dortmund then the rebuild of Liverpool and turning them into PL/CL winners.
Just for the record, I think Pep is an all time great manager but he falls into a different category than the likes of the managers I named.
He cost that, because that was his release clause. He wouldnt have joined Dortmund without getting such a clause.....Would you have Haaland upfront this season without the financial doping? We are meant be the best young player in the world cost £51m?
I would still say, and? Isn't that the point? Why would people in football who live it and breathe it and live off it choose randomly to romanticize one thing over the other? Football is not a business, a big part of it is of course but it would never have billions of fans world wise if it was just that. Anything that captures the attention and emotions of billions has some sort of emotional investment to it, i.e: romance. Millions support us because of the romance of the Busby babes and the romance of our comebacks and playing style in general. Real Madrid have a romance to them as do Cruyff's Netherlands or the great Brazil teams. You are talking about the essence of the game that makes it the most popular in the world. If someone can generate such strong feelings in so many people that inspires them to try and copy it, isn't that a very rare value indeed?The same thing that was released in 2009 and sort of remains to this day, although less now: romanticism.
Pep's Barça tiki-taka was instigated to be real pure football and the only way to play football for several years. Everyone else was anti-football or meh, regardless of what they achieved.
Every single discussion in football from that time was this huge hype and myth creation about it. You had to say it was perfection and the media all jumped in, that's why everyone had to mimic Guardiola, it was the cool trendy thing and you didn't dare go counter current.
This became a religion like thing and that's where the major beefs with Guardiola vs Mourinho and Messi vs Ronaldo started and these remain to this day.
All very good points to which I would add tactical fouling. The likes of which I’ve never seen a team get away with so much.No.
He Cheated as a player (Nandrolone).
He cheated as coach of Barca (Ramon Segura)
He couldn’t fail with Bayern (monopoly)
He cheated with City (115 Charges FC).
His football is innovative but deathly boring.
His clubs are always the richest or most dominant in their leagues.
He’s either inherited the best players in the world, or spent a billion to assemble them.
Zero respect for the guy. Shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath as the greats of the game.
Cruel reality of life is that cheats, far too often, do prosper. He’s the living embodiment of a 14 year old playing FM with the editor on.
