Messi played at Barca untill he was 34. And yeah they didnt play Stoke football but its not like the football was the same all the time. And yeah Messi´s stats went down as he got older. They were incredibly consistent long after Guardiola. But anyway, this thread isnt specifically about Messi, so I will try not to go down that rabbit hole in this thread.
Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?
- Thread starter Irrational.
- Start date
Judging by the clubs he’s managed and the money he had to spend I would say no to the threads question.
Here is a list of the 50 longest managerial reigns in football post-1946. There are many English clubs on the list. There is only a single Spanish managerial stint there and it's #50. Clear evidence of a difference in cultures. In Spain stints are much shorter and it is expected that you move on after negative results.
Besides that, you are ignoring the actual reason he left, which wasn't Mourinho. It was politics. Guardiola was appointed by Joan Laporta and Txiki Begiristain, and supported by Johan Cruyff. He was very friendly with all those people. Two years after his appointment, Sandro Rosell, won the presidential elections. Rosell had been at war with Laporta for years; after becoming president, he sued Laporta and took away Cruyff's title of "honorary president." Berigistain also left the club with Laporta. Guardiola had a poor relationship with Rosell, did not want to continue working with him, and quit after two years.
You can choose what perspective you want to see things from but you can’t pass it down as a fact. You realize that some people also question the fact that SAF manages teams in the British circles only. I personally do not see it as a problem only that I’m just saying that we tend to use sentimental judgements according to our tribal affiliations quite a bit.
Okay I will take your word for it.
Good point and if a player gives himself a challenge and stays at not a top club they’re called unambitious or if they stay outside the Premier League their performances are considered playing against ‘farmers’, serious double standard. Pep has dominated the so-called hardest league in the world.
If he does another Treble, the actual Treble, and not some silly cup treble, then I don't think there will be a reasonably good argument to not consider him as the GOAT.
Also, he has been delivering major trophies as a manager for nearly 15 years now. The longevity thing is also increasingly in his favour.
I don't think he's the best ever, at least not yet, although he may very well become it one day. What I find extremely odd is the argument that he can't possibly ever be the best because he has only managed the best clubs. It's utterly bizarre.
I think this is underrated. Klopp, Ancelotti, Tuchel, Pocchetino, Conte, Allegri, Zidane, Nagelsmann, Arteta, Mourinho, Sarri, basically all managers who could be considered top class in recent past go through rough times and Klopp aside all have experienced the occasional sack - many of them especially then when they were in charge of world class teams (which according to many in here should make life easier for them, not more difficult). Guardiola didn't. His teams always compete and when he leaves it is on his own terms. This consistency is remarkable. Even in the UCL - which is generally the biggest point of criticism thrown at Guardiola - you won't find another coach who gets his team to last 16 or the semis as reliably.
Ferguson can make a squad of ok players think they are the best. I wonder how much that 2011 1st team cost to put together. It won the league and would have won the CL but for Pep and his GOAT barca side. Its crazy to think. In many ways fair play to Pep for building that Barca side
Someone like Klopp turned Dortmund into a world class side only to have their star players running down their contracts to join Bayern right before the CL final vs Bayern none the less. Its not remotely comparable to odds that Guardiola has had in his favour. Again Klopp won Liverpools first league title in decades and went to back to back CL finals, winning one of them, after spending the Coutinho money. It was always going to be difficult to sustain his form at Liverpool when the opposition was City, with their backing and Guardiola at the helm. City had anticipated Guardiola coming for years and he got everything he wanted. Someone like Zidane, I dunno, after winning the 3 peat in his first 3 seasons, expectations are always going to be unrealistic.
Zidane winning three UCL crowns on the trot is remarkable and never done before but don’t you think there are other achievements he could have tried to get either at club level e.g a treble or even with a NT side other than France.
The highlights of Klopp’s career are truly remarkable but what are the odds of a rookie manager with a largely homegrown team not only winning a treble in his first season but also dominating Europe in an unprecedented manner?
Pep is past these points of his career. You're asking him to relegate himself to manage shit teams or falling giants and build them from scratch just to prove something he doesn't need to, when he's at the peak of his game at the moment. He's an ex-Barcelona legend who started his career at his ex-club and managed to achieve incredible success from there going forward. Many other legends had a similar start to their career and failed miserably, Pirlo, Lampard..etc. It's not as easy as you're making it out to be.
Well what Pep did was at Barca is remarkable. I dont think there is any doubt that he's one of the best ever. It just doesnt sit right with me that to say he is the greatest and its not just because he manages City.
Not really. The average seems to be 2-3 years and he was there for 4.
Honestly I don’t expect you to.
I didn’t say it was easy. Pep is a brilliant brilliant manager, but going off the teams he’s managed and the resources at his disposal, I’d say he’s not the best manager ever...at the moment.
No ones suggesting he has to manage shit teams, there's a massive chasm between shit teams and managing teams with 3 of the greatest players ever, taking over treble winners and a side with unlimited resources. Going to juventus and turning them into league champions again and cl contenders would be a big challenge and test of his managerial abilities, no one is asking to take over a team in the relegation places
He's managing the best team in Europe, a treble winner side. Why would he go to the 7th team in Serie A who are going to play in Conference League ? You realize this job is beneath him, right ?
That's the problem of this logic. You want him to take a fallen giant and wave his magic wand to turn them into a title winner just to prove to you that he's the best ever. Guardiola is in no need to do such thing. He's so good to take these kind of jobs.
If you had to say back a imaginary club for 7 seasons. You have same squad available from the beginning, same set transfer budget for 5 seasons, same wage structure. Who would you choose as the manager being able to pick a any manager from any era?
The problem with this logic is that football is not a linear graph. Managers have done tremendously with very small budgets and then given access to their dream conditions and underwhelmed. Also a manager may have done great 20 years ago but is no longer elite today in terms of tactical nous.
"This job is beneath him" that's a bit of a weird thing to say. Juventus would have finished 3rd but for a points deduction as well I think. I don't expect him to do this, but you can't complain there are question marks when he's only ever managed sides that are much better than their competition. Look at how he did in his first season at City, took over a strong side that finished 4th, spent 200m and finished 3rd, it wasn't til he spent another 300m that he won the title. Surely if it was him and not the money that was the biggest factor he could have done wonders in his first season at City where he took over a team with aguero, David Silva and Kevin de bruyne and got 200m to spend?
Frank Lampard
Just to see how far they could actually fall.
But no, seriously, prime Fergie easily.
Because he's not as good as me
If I can get you to pay attention to me with an obvious exaggerated post, then I can get anyone to listen to me.
When you look at the entirety of his career viz-a-viz that of his contemporaries then a more informed judgement can be made. Problem is that we try to downplay his successes even when he led a Barca team as a rookie manager. They weren’t the favorites then but this gets ignored and then we use hindsight to claim that he was the favourite for the titles either in Spain or in Europe. This selective approach would also mean that our preferred manager’s outstanding success which may consist of 10% of their managing career gets highlighted while we ignore highlighted and the remaining 90% which is far less inspiring.
Tbh I reckon it's OK to look in hindsight at Messi, xavi and iniesta being brilliant players and saying maybe they should have been favourites even if they weren't. Xavi and iniesta were pivotal in Spain winning 3 major international tournaments in a row. Vilanova matched mourinho's 100 point reord the season after pep left and had lost the league to mourinho. Things like that need to be factored in
This thread title triggers me.
It would be wrong to use hindsight because you are judging now having seen these players blossom into the best midfield architects of their generation. Similar to Busquets, Pep simply put his faith in these youngsters and no matter what Xavi and Iniesta had achieved on the international scene, they were never favorites despite your claims. Real Madrid winners of the previous season has the likes of Cannavaro, Casillas, Pepe, Ramos, Marcelo, Raul, Sneijder, Guti, Robben, Higuain, Ruud, etc in their ranks. I wonder how you came to the conclusion that Barca were favorites. They not only won the league but cleared all the available trophies on offer. Other managers have come and do brilliantly but I still ask for by are these names not popping out on the conversation for best manager today?
Truly no manager has a magic wand and they all have their highs and lows. All I’m saying is that if you are looking at Pep losing a liga title to Jose you have to consider how many he has also won and how many Jose have also won and lost when he was at big rich clubs. If you say Klopp won the league and the UCL against all odds, don’t ignore he had 4 years to prepare his dream team without bothering about a sack letter and also that Conte beat him and Pep in his first season in epl or that right now he lost his UCL place to Howe and Arteta.
It wouldn't be wrong to use hindsight, Messi maturing and getting over his injury issues played a big part in pep's first season and it isn't fair to say "well if people at the time couldn't predict Messi suddenly getting over all his injury issues and playing amazing then you can't say now that having Messi, xavi and iniesta was a massive advantage
Like the best players in the world, the best managers also always choose the best clubs with most resources. That doesn't make their achievements any less significant.
Pep is the best manager of the modern era like SAF was the best of his era.
Pep is the best manager of the modern era like SAF was the best of his era.
It would be wrong because there have been so many “next Messis” and “next Ronaldos” over the years who never fulfilled their potentials. I dare say the reason why Neymar never reached the heights of the two names I just mentioned is because he lacked a mentor. You talk about Messi getting over his injuries but Pep played a major part in that in first of all by asking Deco, Ronaldinho and Eto’o to go (though he changed his mind on Samuel later). He then went ahead to ensure that these youngsters got the mentorship and the discipline of professionals that shaped their lives and their careers forever so much so that Ibrahimovic accused them of acting like schoolboys. The evidence of their achievements show that maybe Zlatan was wrong. Neymar had everything and could have easily been the heir to the throne of the football GOATs but lacked a SAF or Pep like figure in his life.
How did vilanova get 100 points in la liga (which pep never managed) the season afterlep left if so much was down to pep and no one else could have had the same success with those players?
Exactly. But the tribalism of the opposing fans will never allow them to admit it.
I agree there, best in the modern era followed by Klopp as much as it pains me to say it.
Right but equally a player who led a midtable to a few champions leagues would be a much bigger achievement than a player doing it at Madrid or Barca.
Of course he did but just like I said look at the entire career of the manager and decide. Pity that Tito lost his battle to cancer. I wouldn’t rate Tito ahead of Pep just because he got 100 points because there are other things that Pep managed to achieve that Tito didn’t touch.
I'm not saying I'd rate vilanova ahead of pep, I'm saying the guys assistant coach managed to get those same players to 100 points, which might indicate it was an incredible group of players, and not some ridiculous achievement
It was an incredible bunch indeed but they weren’t the favorites. Pep unlocked the potentials of a number of those players to actually dominate the world. I will give you an example. Pique became a mainstay not only in Barca for at least a decade but also in the Spanish national team. If you use hindsight to judge, having seen Pique in his all his glory, you wouldn’t commend the work of the manager.
Also Busquets came to be known as the standard for deep lying playmakers in a generation. If you use hindsight you’d not appreciate all the work that went in but when he first played for Barca senior team he didn’t have that profile.