Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

Oh come on. It's Liverpool. They had won 5 CL titles already and had finished 2nd in the league a year and a half before Klopp joined.

Their first choice striker was Benteke. Man Utd finished 2nd a year before ETH joined. I'm not sure how that means anything.

I dislike Klopp intensely. I also don't think he's the greatest manager if all time,but I think the idea of putting Pep in that bracket is ridiculous when he hasnt even proven he can make a struggling team succesful. He's managed teams where it's been made as easy as possible for him and where the competitionhas already been left behind before he's joined. One where its been conclusively proven they cheated, another where there was a VERY big cloud over them in terms of whether they cheated.

There's a reason why City win the treble and it gets less attention thwn anyone else winning 1 trophy
 
Guardiola deserves criticism for plenty of things, he's not a perfect manager. Things like 'not winning the CL quickly enough with Lyon', 'embarrassing exits', 'having plenty of talent at his disposal', etc. I don't always agree with the importance given to these things, but the substance is valid.

It just gets goofy in a thread where people are comparing managers, because they don't apply the same standards to everyone.

Is losing in the CL to Lyon embarrassing? Yes. Is it more embarrassing than finishing 4th in the CL group stages, against Villareal, Benfica, and Lille (which Ferguson's United did in 2005)? I'm sorry, but it isn't.

Did Guardiola benefit from Messi, 7-time Balon d'Or winner? Absolutely. Did Alex Ferguson benefit from Ronaldo, 5-time Balon d'Or winner? Also true.

Ferguson, Klopp, all top managers have some great achievements but also plenty of failures, the latter are being downplayed here.
 
Last edited:
It is because of its higher difficulty that there is less pressure; nobody actually expects that you'll do it.

You could sum up a lot of the arguments in this thread with this. Every job has its own challenges. Managers get sacked after winning trophies at top clubs, managers that are expected to finish 10th that finish 12th can stay in a job for years. They’re different levels. Look at Moyes making the step from Everton to Man United or Galtier to PSG.

Horses for courses too, some managers are better suited to certain environments. Pep is coming up to 15 years in management and he’s never come close to being sacked despite managing with the expectations to win every game. Plenty of managers would have won 5-6 leagues with the teams he’s had, some might have won 8-9 but 12 leagues is a testament to his consistent and relentless dominance across all 3 leagues he’s managed in.

Tata Martino had Busquets-Xavi-Fabregas, Iniesta-Messi-Neymar front 6 and finished 3rd in La Liga and couldn’t win anything. Not as easy as it looks.
 
Their first choice striker was Benteke. Man Utd finished 2nd a year before ETH joined. I'm not sure how that means anything.

It means the arguments are based more on narratives than on facts.

I rate Klopp but people are building an exaggerated narrative here. Benitez won the CL with Liverpool in his first attempt (and lead them to another final), Rodgers almost won the league with them less than two years before Klopp's arrival. Competing, even winning titles, as manager of Liverpool is not some impossible thing.

Neither is winning a Bundesliga title. Bayern Munich didn't use to win every single title. Wolfsburg, Sttutgart, and Werder Bremen won it a few years before Dortmund's titles under Klopp. Since Klopp's departure, Dortmund have never missed the Bundesliga top 4, and have improved on their performance from Klopp's last three seasons (in which they were miles behind Bayern). It's pretty clear that the sporting structure in place there was crucial for his success.
 
Last edited:
Guardiola deserves criticism for plenty of things, he's not a perfect manager. Things like 'not winning the CL quickly enough with Lyon', 'embarrassing exits', 'having plenty of talent at his disposal', etc. I don't always agree with the importance given to these things, but the substance is valid.

It just gets goofy in a thread where people are comparing managers, because they don't apply the same standards to everyone.

Is losing in the CL to Lyon embarrassing? Yes. Is it more embarrassing than finishing 4th in the CL group stages, against Villareal, Benfica, and Lille (which Ferguson's United did in 2005)? I'm sorry, but it isn't.

Did Guardiola benefit from Messi, 7-time Balon d'Or winner? Absolutely. Did Alex Ferguson benefit from Ronaldo, 5-time Balon d'Or winner? Also true.

Ferguson, Klopp, all top managers have some great achievements but also plenty of failures, the latter are being downplayed here.
Well said.
 
It means the arguments are based more on narratives than on facts.

I rate Klopp but people are building an exaggerated narrative here. Benitez won the CL with Liverpool in his first attempt (and lead them to another final), Rodgers almost won the league with them less than two years before Klopp's arrival. Competing, even winning titles, as manager of Liverpool is not some impossible thing.

Neither is winning a Bundesliga title. Bayern Munich didn't use to win every single title. Wolfsburg, Sttutgart, and Werder Bremen won it a few years before Dortmund's titles under Klopp. Since Klopp's departure, Dortmund have never missed the Bundesliga top 4, and have improved on their performance from Klopp's last three seasons (in which they were miles behind Bayern). It's pretty clear that the sporting structure in place there was crucial for his success.
Didn't Chelsea have a manager who immediately won the CL as well but got fired quickly, Tunchel.
 
but I think the idea of putting Pep in that bracket is ridiculous when he hasnt even proven he can make a struggling team succesful.

This gets into an earlier comment I made about cultural differences.

France Football's list of best managers is: Rinus Michels, Alex Ferguson, Arrigo Sacchi, Johan Cruyff, Pep Guardiola, Valeri Lobanovski, Helenio Herrera, Carlo Ancelotti, Ernst Happel, and Bill Shankly.

The continental managers there like Michels, Sacchi, Cruyff, Guardiola, Herrera, Ancelotti, Happel... they're not known for making struggling teams successful. They're known for either a gloriously successful team (regardless of the circumstances), or for a long track record of success.

If you start taking out managers from this list because "they didn't build a team from scratch" or "didn't take a struggling team and turn it around" then your top ten is mostly going to be people who managed in England.
 
I rate Klopp but people are building an exaggerated narrative here. Benitez won the CL with Liverpool in his first attempt (and lead them to another final), Rodgers almost won the league with them less than two years before Klopp's arrival. Competing, even winning titles, as manager of Liverpool is not some impossible thing.

I think Pep is a superior manager to Klopp but I don't think people are exaggerating his accomplishments.

That Rodgers side was inspired by Suarez (evidenced by the fact that as soon as he left it all fell apart while Suarez went on to be part of probably the best front 3 in history). In fact I'm pretty sure in Gerrard's last game ( the season after Suarez left and the season before Klopp came in) they got whipped 5 or 6 nil by Stoke (as well as being embarrassed in Europe).

Their starting 11 for Klopps first game;

1109916_1109916_line-up-4-3-3_black.jpg


Is absolutely atrocious and their only "quality" player departed not long afterward.

Also competing for titles vs Peps City is a whole different ballgame (this is why I feel Pep is probably the best in recent history at least).

Rodgers "nearly" won the league with 84 points, Benitez with 86.

Klopp has lost with a 97 point haul as well as competing at the highest European level (I can't remember if he won a champs league that season or they made the final) consistently.

Saying Pep is better than Klopp is IMO the truth but it doesn't help your case (if you want to say that Pep is the best) by playing down the accomplishments of his most tenacious rival.

If anything giving Klopp the credit that he is due (IMO) strengthens your claim for Pep being the best because he bested him.
 
Didn't Chelsea have a manager who immediately won the CL as well but got fired quickly, Tunchel.

Di matteo!!

All these "Can Pep take a middle class club to win this" only matter on the internet pages. Top management of top clubs don't care and go towards certain type of managers for a reason not the achievement that win brownie points on the internet examples
Dimatteo won the CL when Chelsea finished 6th but since then, 11yrs ago, he coached 6months with Chelsea got fired, 9months with Schalke resigned and 3 months with Aston Villa got fired
Ranieri won the League with lowly Leicester (The type of "can Pep win with Leicester") but since then he has been tossing from one mid table club to another now in Serie B
Avram Grant took Chelsea to their first CL final which many top coaches couldnt losing on PK, yet no top club has hired him for a full time job since
 
I dislike Klopp intensely. I also don't think he's the greatest manager if all time,but I think the idea of putting Pep in that bracket is ridiculous when he hasnt even proven he can make a struggling team succesful.

I will expect Ranieri to be your GOAT manager as I struggle to see any manager who met your criteria better than him
 
Didn't Chelsea have a manager who immediately won the CL as well but got fired quickly, Tunchel.

People forget this alot, Pep has lasted at the top because he's consistent, he's averaging 2.5 titles per season, that's almost a treble per season with close to a 73% win rate as a manager. Its hardly his team drop off in level and performance they're playing at a high level for at least 80% of the season. Manager have been sacked for winning leagues, winning cups and even on some odd cases winning CL, like Heynckes and Di Matteo, its largely down to the squad under performing, they know these titles were won with a lot of luck, down to the players largely and this not being sustainable. At the higher level manager lose players due not being able to deal with egos and player powers, Pep has no issue with this. I feel people try to convince themselves that what he does is easy, when in reality it is far from it.
 
Oh come on. It's Liverpool. They had won 5 CL titles already and had finished 2nd in the league a year and a half before Klopp joined.
I will expect Ranieri to be your GOAT manager as I struggle to see any manager who met your criteria better than him
Shouldn’t need to be spelled out as people already know this, but I will still do it. Not sure what Liverpool winning CLs in 80s or 2005 has to do with Klopp winning it 1,5 decades later.

And I am sure while DiMatteo’s or Ranieri’s stories are great and romantic, no one considers them as great managers, let alone among the best ever, because apart from that 1 season the rest of their career isn’t nearly as impressive.
When people talk about great underdog or lower spending managers they mean managers such as:

SAF: Won several league titles and domestic cups plus European trophies with Aberdeen. They won their only league title before SAF in 1955. They haven’t won it since he left. They have won their only European trophies under him.

Then at United while the 2008 team had good investment (until 2008), the 99 team’s investment was a joke compared to Europe. We were both in 5 years and 10 years period prior to the treble only Europe’s 12th/13th biggest spenders. And a few teams had not only spent slightly more, but literally 2-3 times more.

Brian Clough: Doesn’t need any explanation.

Mourinho: Porto achievements are remarkable, still he is not considered a great manager just because of them, but also because of his other jobs and trophies.

Klopp: 3 great/very good seasons at Dortmund. Last non-Bayern manager to win the league. 11 years and counting. Then he won Liverpool’s 1st league title in 3 decades against a mega rich state and their immense spending (plus their long term cheating). Won their 1st CL in 14 years. Came close to winning a couple of more PL and CLs.

Whereas everywhere Pep has managed so far his teams had won the league/CL (or even both) only 1 or 2 years before he joined. Barca also won the league already 1 year after he left. CL 4 years later. Bayern win the league every season. Won the CL only weeks/months before he joined. They also won the CL 4 years after he left.

It’s ok if some people don’t value underdog achievements or achievements under more difficult circumstances (average team which hadn’t won a big trophy in ages / limited spending, etc.) that highly. But it remains a fact that the main trophies Pep won at his clubs were also mostly won by his predecessors and successors shortly before and after him. You can of course claim/admire that he may have won them more convincingly.
Whereas with Klopp/SAF success at Aberdeen, United, Dortmund, Liverpool was/is much more difficult/rare to achieve. And unlike Ranieri or Di Matteo they are not just remembered for 1 great season.
 
Di matteo!!

All these "Can Pep take a middle class club to win this" only matter on the internet pages. Top management of top clubs don't care and go towards certain type of managers for a reason not the achievement that win brownie points on the internet examples
Dimatteo won the CL when Chelsea finished 6th but since then, 11yrs ago, he coached 6months with Chelsea got fired, 9months with Schalke resigned and 3 months with Aston Villa got fired
Ranieri won the League with lowly Leicester (The type of "can Pep win with Leicester") but since then he has been tossing from one mid table club to another now in Serie B
Avram Grant took Chelsea to their first CL final which many top coaches couldnt losing on PK, yet no top club has hired him for a full time job since

Ranieri had been around for about 30 years before he won with Leicester. He already looked washed up managing Greece. It was an unexpected late career success.

I agree these things don't matter much in terms of real-life careers, but when you're discussing who the greatest manager of all-time is, it's best to tick as many boxes as possible. So if some of the other contenders have done that and he hasn't, nothing wrong with bringing it up.
 
He's been lucky to get the Barcelona job with little experience.

Since then, he's been making his own luck. There's a reason Bayern went for him, there's a reason City went for him when they could have gotten almost anyone.

Nobody gets the Barcelona job at that time through luck.

The guy is an incredible coach and nobody can deny it. He’s among the best we’ve ever seen.

But there’s no denying the fact that he’s never done anything impressive with a team/squad that wasn’t the best in the league.

On the one hand; the best managers and coaches get the best jobs. On the other; no other manager has toured just three clubs while all of them were head and shoulders above anything else in those leagues.
 
Whereas with Klopp/SAF success at Aberdeen, United, Dortmund, Liverpool was/is much more difficult/rare to achieve. And unlike Ranieri or Di Matteo they are not just remembered for 1 great season.

Not that rare, we have Steaua, Red Star type of teams winning the CL, Seville winning EL 5 times in a row, Galatasaray winning UEFA Cup against the mighty Arsenal and Super Cup against Real, and many other examples.. Dinamo Tbilisi won UEFA Cup Winner's Cup two years prior to Aberdeen.

What's really rare is that United gave SAF unlimited credit despite not winning much the first 6-7 years he was at United.. When he joined United, United was already a top contender in the league, a solid top-4 team, yet had to wait for another 7 years to win the league title and their patience obviously paid off. I do not think that any other top team would be that tolerant, certainly no other team outside the UK..

I am pretty sure most top managers such as Ancelotti, Guardiola, Cruyff, Michels, Lippi will be able to win titles at a top 3-4 team (not the most dominant team) if given 6-7 years in a major league..

Your criteria actually makes Mourinho stand out more than any other manager, easily makes him the greatest manager ever with the things he achieved at Porto right away, again using your criteria..
 
Last edited:
Not that rare, we have Steaua, Red Star type of teams winning the CL, Seville winning EL 5 times in a row, Galatasaray winning UEFA Cup against the mighty Arsenal and Super Cup against Real, and many other examples.. Dinamo Tbilisi won UEFA Cup Winner's Cup two years prior to Aberdeen.

What's really rare is that United gave SAF unlimited credit despite not winning much the first 6-7 years he was at United.. When he joined United, United was already a top contender in the league, a solid top-4 team, yet had to wait for another 7 years to win the league title and their patience obviously paid off. I do not think that any other top team would be that tolerant, certainly no other team outside the UK..

I am pretty sure most top managers such as Ancelotti, Guardiola, Cruyff, Michels, Lippi will be able to win titles at a top 3-4 team (not the most dominant team) if given 6-7 years in a major league..

Your criteria actually makes Mourinho stand out more than any other manager, easily makes him the greatest manager ever with the things he achieved at Porto right away, again using your criteria..
So much wrong with your post and really not worth my time to correct it all. But just a couple of things. United were actually 19th in the league when SAF joined. He won the cup winners cup in his 4th full season despite that United team having no previous European experience due to the 5-year European ban (still in the first season the ban was lifted United won a European trophy). United was a drinking club and SAF had to restructure and change the whole club and culture including the youth set-up. So maybe the United hierarchy knew what he was doing and that’s why they gave him “unlimited credit” (and because of his Aberdeen achievements).
 
So much wrong with your post and really not worth my time to correct it all. But just a couple of things. United were actually 19th in the league when SAF joined. He won the cup winners cup in his 4th full season despite that United team having no previous European experience due to the 5-year European ban (still in the first season the ban was lifted United won a European trophy). United was a drinking club and SAF had to restructure and change the whole club and culture including the youth set-up. So maybe the United hierarchy knew what he was doing and that’s why they gave him “unlimited credit” (and because of his Aberdeen achievements).

United finished 4th in 85-86, 84-85, 83-84, three seasons in a row. They finished 3rd in 82-83 and 81-82.
They won the FA Cup in 82-83 and 84-85.. They were a semi-finalist in European Cup Winners Cup, only Platini's Juventus could stop them in the semis after beating Maradona's Barca..
 
Last edited:
United finished 4th in 85-86, 84-85, 83-84, three seasons in a row. They finished 3rd in 82-83 and 81-82.
They won the FA Cup in 82-83 and 84-85.. They were a semi-finalist in European Cup Winners Cup, only Platini's Juventus could stop them in the semis after beating Maradona's Barca..
So? It shows that basically United before SAF were similar to United post SAF. Spending a lot of money but not getting anywhere apart from top 4 (reasons: unprofessional players, managers not good enough, no strategy, no leadership, low standards, etc.). As United since 2013, Arsenal, Spurs under Poch, etc. have shown, with enough money spent, average/decent managers will get you top 4, but the step to 1st place is the hardest step and that’s why most managers fail to win the league, but manage to achieve top 4. And the longer you don’t win the league, the more difficult it gets.
You don’t seem to know much about the circumstances when SAF took over United. All his work behind the scenes plus him finishing 11th the season he joined when United were 19th, plus 2nd place in his first full season (which as your research showed was better than the 3rd/4th places in previous seasons) was reason enough for the club to keep trust in him when the following seasons weren’t good. The class of 92 btw was one of the results of the good work happening behind the scenes.
Anyway this is my last reply to you on United’s history in the 80s.
 
So? It shows that basically United before SAF were similar to United post SAF. Spending a lot of money but not getting anywhere apart from top 4 (reasons: unprofessional players, managers not good enough, no strategy, no leadership, low standards, etc.). As United since 2013, Arsenal, Spurs under Poch, etc. have shown, with enough money spent, average/decent managers will get you top 4, but the step to 1st place is the hardest step and that’s why most managers fail to win the league, but manage to achieve top 4. And the longer you don’t win the league, the more difficult it gets.
You don’t seem to know much about the circumstances when SAF took over United. All his work behind the scenes plus him finishing 11th the season he joined when United were 19th, plus 2nd place in his first full season (which as your research showed was better than the 3rd/4th places in previous seasons) was reason enough for the club to keep trust in him when the following seasons weren’t good. The class of 92 btw was one of the results of the good work happening behind the scenes.
Anyway this is my last reply to you on United’s history in the 80s.

This sounds more like United team had enough quality to be a top-4 team and being 19 early in that season was really an outlier probably due to mismanagement based on your post. To be honest, I was surprised to find that United was a regular top-4 team in the seasons before his arrival.

I am not questioning why United continued to keep him despite not winning the league in the first 6-7 years as history shows that this was the best decision for both parties. All I am saying is it is really hard to imagine another top team to be that patient. I do not think Real, Bayern, Barca, Milan etc. will back a manager that long regardless of that manager's credentials and where they finished a year ago..I think it is fair to say that SAF was fortunate enough to start his big-team career at a supportive team like United.. And of course, United was extremely lucky to have someone like him..
 
Last edited:
Nobody gets the Barcelona job at that time through luck.

He was given the job because the Barcelona people believed he had something in him, but not many at big clubs would bet on a coach with no experience at a senior level. So I believe he was lucky that Barca had the courage to do so.

But there’s no denying the fact that he’s never done anything impressive with a team/squad that wasn’t the best in the league.

On the one hand; the best managers and coaches get the best jobs. On the other; no other manager has toured just three clubs while all of them were head and shoulders above anything else in those leagues.

Bayern winning the league is almost a given. It's different in Spain and it was different in England until Pep arrived. Yes, City won leagues, but they didn't dominate like this. While those are two bigs clubs that are used to winning, he took them to another level.
 
He was given the job because the Barcelona people believed he had something in him, but not many at big clubs would bet on a coach with no experience at a senior level. So I believe he was lucky that Barca had the courage to do so.



Bayern winning the league is almost a given. It's different in Spain and it was different in England until Pep arrived. Yes, City won leagues, but they didn't dominate like this. While those are two bigs clubs that are used to winning, he took them to another level.

I don’t really disagree. He’s a one off.

But he’s only ever worked with the most dominant and richest teams in the leagues. It’s still brilliant.
 
Doesnt seem like many here know how difficult it is to coach the very best.

Not only that. Imagine signing highly valued professionals who perceive the big-money move to City as proof of how good they are at kicking the hall, and the first thing they experience on the training ground is that they have to forget everything they know and "reeducate" themselves in how the game is played. The transformation of his signings in their second seasons under his guidance, if it succeeds, is usually spectacular. The money allows him to keep the squad always fresh and hungry while performing in a very draining, mostly mentally, system. But some of us are old enough to remember that there was a time when Puyol was little more than a sloppy RB for many and it was also considered suicidal to play a high-line with such slow players like Xavi and Iniesta when the norm was to be physical in the midfield and hit on the counter
 
Ferguson is a reasonable comparison to Guardiola, he's one of the most successful and respected managers ever and a non-controversial choice for #1.

Klopp, though, I honestly have no idea what people are thinking. He's won 3 league titles and 1 CL in a career spanning two decades, a paltry return.

It's impressive that he won it with Dortmund, but they only competed for the league twice under him. They weren't even remotely close to winning it during the other seasons. And like I said earlier, this was before teams other than Bayern couldn't win a title. Liverpool (one of the biggest, most successful teams in England!) have competed for the league title in only 3 of his 8 seasons, winning it once. They have an impressive 3 CL finals record, but only won it once, against a team allergic to winning.

These are achievements, to be sure, but they're not unique. Diego Simeone's Atletico have won two league titles and competed for at least 2 more, as well as reached 2 CL finals (and won the EL a bunch of times). Rafa Benitez won La Liga twice with Valencia. Javi Irureta won the league with Deportivo La Coruña and kept them competitive for years. Simeone has actually won titles after losing major players, which is the excuse trotted out when Klopp can't compete.

The actual reason Klopp is more respected than those managers is because people like his style of football.
 
Last edited:
We can extend it to two if you like. It’s not much of a competition is it?
Of course it is a competition.

Real Madrid have a shitload of resources. They spent a gazillion dollars the summer after Guardiola joined, and with their new signings finished with a club-record 96 points in the league. Guess what, they still lost.
 
Last edited:
What happened to the careers of Hart, Sagna Fernando Nasri Bony Kolarov, Zabaleta immediately after City, None could get into a tier 1 club. These are he world class stars he met there

Komapny was always injured, who in this world considered Otamendi one of EPL best? Yaya was old and left city to Olympiakos where he was fired after 6months, Sterling was considered a joke

Any player with Pep is tagged world class but the moment he leaves the next team downgrade their expectations. Chelsea fans are railing about how useless Sterling is. Same with how mediocre Sane has been for Bayern.

Those players you mention in the first line weren't the spine I mentioned that he inherited. Those were extras in the squad. And he could replace them on the let go.
Kompany was always injured yes, but he was good when he played. And when he joined he got Stones (regardless of how he initially played it was a big transfer) immediately. Otamendi wasn't one of the EPL best but a good player neverthless. Yaya Touré had been great in the previous years. He would of course start to fall due to his age, but ask any manager if he wanted one of the best midfields of the past years in the EPL as default. If Sterling was considered a joke why did City buy him? He's not as good as his fame suggested I fully agree but again it's yet another good player to have in the squad.

The moment they leave players turn to crap and he has a golden touch - we can say the reverse too, that they to crap because of him and the the new ones were good but wrongly used by their previous manager. And the players leave because they're bad, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sané for example was bad the year before he left, that's WHY he left.
He obviously is a good manager and he definitively gives some (most?) players a boost. What you can't say is that he didn't inherit a very good squad, which he definitively did. Compare the squad his rivals had when he came. United for example had just a terrible squad, lightyears behind of what City had.
 
Even more ironic is that Haaland has been a non-entity in the SF and final.

Of the 2 strongest teams in theory they faced (Bayern and Real), he was decisive vs Bayern. So of course he was useless.
 
Guardiola deserves criticism for plenty of things, he's not a perfect manager. Things like 'not winning the CL quickly enough with Lyon', 'embarrassing exits', 'having plenty of talent at his disposal', etc. I don't always agree with the importance given to these things, but the substance is valid.

It just gets goofy in a thread where people are comparing managers, because they don't apply the same standards to everyone.

Is losing in the CL to Lyon embarrassing? Yes. Is it more embarrassing than finishing 4th in the CL group stages, against Villareal, Benfica, and Lille (which Ferguson's United did in 2005)? I'm sorry, but it isn't.

Did Guardiola benefit from Messi, 7-time Balon d'Or winner? Absolutely. Did Alex Ferguson benefit from Ronaldo, 5-time Balon d'Or winner? Also true.

Ferguson, Klopp, all top managers have some great achievements but also plenty of failures, the latter are being downplayed here.

Everyone has flukes, that is normal. With long careers it's also normal to have several flukes.
Most people here aren't saying Guardiola is not a good manager. He obviously is.
But what this thread is about is if he is the greatest manager of all time.

And there is gets subjective of course.
The problem with losing to Lyon isn't that in itself, like I said flukes are normal.
The problem of the claim that he is the greatest manager ever is that this happened many times. He has failed in the CL against teams that in theory are weaker than his' several times. And this IS a very compelling (subjective) argument that he might not be the greatest ever.

If he the best manager of all times wouldn't you expect him to get through teams weaker than his most times?
And it's not just the weak teams, when faced with teams with similar quality to his' most of the times he can't get past them as well.
And then you have the case of when he has had teams weaker than his opponents'. Which in his case is something that is very rare. With other manager we do have a lot more examples of this.

So with strong team vs weak foe I would argue he is worse/equal to other great managers of the last 20 years.
With strong team vs strong foe I would argue he is equal to other great managers of the last 20 years.
With weak team vs strong foe we barely have data on him to compare to others, he rarely is in this situation.

This is the CL talk, what about the leagues?

In Barcelona B he was a contender to go up (iirc, please confirm) and he delivered.
In Barcelona he inherited a very good squad, that had a very bad season the year before but the same squad had won the CL 2 years before - it surely couldn't have been that bad. He also had some recent Euro champion players in the team.
He gets the credit, correctly, that regardless of the players he had to build Barcelona up to one of the strongest teams in history. He won many titles and 2 CLs with the teams he built.
He did eventually "let" Real catch up to him (Real spent a fortune) and he lost the league (normal vs a similar quality rival) and was eliminated by Chelsea, which again is a fluke and happens.
He left when the rival team had catched up to the quality of his teams, this is a viable criticism imho but he wanted a new project and that's pretty normal, he had won everything multiple times there, he didn't need to prove himself in Barcelona again.

He goes to Bayern, that had won a treble and that has won many german titles in the previous years, also having reached 3 finals in the previous 4 years.
He inherits a super strong team and wins the bundesliga 3 years in a row. That was pretty normal given the state of the team he had and the competition that had inferior resources.
In the CL he loses to equal or worse teams, basically he did an average job there, just normal.

He goes to City, that just like Barcelona, have had a previous bad season but had been champion before that. He inherits a very good squad with some of the best players in the League. And he has free reign to buy players, in his stint here he has the ability to buy anyone he wants and to get rid of expensive players he doesn't want to.
And his rivals? Leicester had just been champion, which starts to show the state of his rivals.
United had an horrendous squad, Arsenal was in his 4th place champion state of mind, Liverpool had an average squad and had finished 8th, Chelsea had a good squad but had a calamitous season with the Mourinho turmoil and Tottenham had a good put up team but not on outstanding player quality to compete every year (like Leicester).
For me at least only Chelsea had a squad (player quality) of similar quality to his, everyone else had worse squads, some like Tottenham and Leicester had a good team setup that could make them compete.
So he picks the team in 4th place and with one of the 2 best squads, also spending even more, ends up in 3rd place. That is normal, a bit of underperforming but it's ok.
In the following years he kept buying and buying to the point his squad is so much better than his rivals', I'm sorry but I cannot state this enough. He had the best team in England by far - his bench players would walk in most of his rivals' starting XI.
Leicester and Tottenham couldn't keep with the same team overarchieveing and fell as normal, Arsenal was doing Arsenal things, United kept spending but even in best case scenario would need several years to have at least a good quad (hint: they didn't even do that :D ), Chelsea kept having good to ok squads and Liverpool improved the squad. So imho only Chelsea and Liverpool did have good enough squads to compete with him - but still nowhere near his squads' quality.
And what is the result?
He wins most leagues, losing some to Liverpool and Chelsea (first year). Wins other cups, like the other teams.
And in the CL, with this strong squad, he manages the same real output as Chelsea and Liverpool - 1 victory.

So in his stint he England I would say he did a job SIMILAR to what other good managers would do.
Give the City squad and means to other good managers of this generation (Ancelotti, Mourinho, Conte, Tuchel, Klopp, Zidane, etc), give them the rivals Guardiola had, and I would argue they would have similar results to what he had.
5 Leagues in 7 years, 1 CL in the same period. I would say they would get similar results, probably something like 3/4 Leagues in 7 years and 2 CL in the same period.

So imho what he did and won is in the same ballpark, not above, what other managers would do when in his situation.
I don't pretend to know who is the best (TM) manager but honestly I can't see him being above other good managers of this generation when you contextualise his and the others' contexts.
If the "but he won so context doesn't matter" argument is what you bring, well I respect but I disagree, Santos won an Euro and Deschamps a WC but I don't consider that enough to prove they are better than other national team managers of that generation.
 
Everyone has flukes, that is normal. With long careers it's also normal to have several flukes.
Most people here aren't saying Guardiola is not a good manager. He obviously is.
But what this thread is about is if he is the greatest manager of all time.

And there is gets subjective of course.
The problem with losing to Lyon isn't that in itself, like I said flukes are normal.
The problem of the claim that he is the greatest manager ever is that this happened many times. He has failed in the CL against teams that in theory are weaker than his' several times. And this IS a very compelling (subjective) argument that he might not be the greatest ever.

If he the best manager of all times wouldn't you expect him to get through teams weaker than his most times?
And it's not just the weak teams, when faced with teams with similar quality to his' most of the times he can't get past them as well.
And then you have the case of when he has had teams weaker than his opponents'. Which in his case is something that is very rare. With other manager we do have a lot more examples of this.

So with strong team vs weak foe I would argue he is worse/equal to other great managers of the last 20 years.
With strong team vs strong foe I would argue he is equal to other great managers of the last 20 years.
With weak team vs strong foe we barely have data on him to compare to others, he rarely is in this situation.

This is the CL talk, what about the leagues?

In Barcelona B he was a contender to go up (iirc, please confirm) and he delivered.
In Barcelona he inherited a very good squad, that had a very bad season the year before but the same squad had won the CL 2 years before - it surely couldn't have been that bad. He also had some recent Euro champion players in the team.
He gets the credit, correctly, that regardless of the players he had to build Barcelona up to one of the strongest teams in history. He won many titles and 2 CLs with the teams he built.
He did eventually "let" Real catch up to him (Real spent a fortune) and he lost the league (normal vs a similar quality rival) and was eliminated by Chelsea, which again is a fluke and happens.
He left when the rival team had catched up to the quality of his teams, this is a viable criticism imho but he wanted a new project and that's pretty normal, he had won everything multiple times there, he didn't need to prove himself in Barcelona again.

He goes to Bayern, that had won a treble and that has won many german titles in the previous years, also having reached 3 finals in the previous 4 years.
He inherits a super strong team and wins the bundesliga 3 years in a row. That was pretty normal given the state of the team he had and the competition that had inferior resources.
In the CL he loses to equal or worse teams, basically he did an average job there, just normal.

He goes to City, that just like Barcelona, have had a previous bad season but had been champion before that. He inherits a very good squad with some of the best players in the League. And he has free reign to buy players, in his stint here he has the ability to buy anyone he wants and to get rid of expensive players he doesn't want to.
And his rivals? Leicester had just been champion, which starts to show the state of his rivals.
United had an horrendous squad, Arsenal was in his 4th place champion state of mind, Liverpool had an average squad and had finished 8th, Chelsea had a good squad but had a calamitous season with the Mourinho turmoil and Tottenham had a good put up team but not on outstanding player quality to compete every year (like Leicester).
For me at least only Chelsea had a squad (player quality) of similar quality to his, everyone else had worse squads, some like Tottenham and Leicester had a good team setup that could make them compete.
So he picks the team in 4th place and with one of the 2 best squads, also spending even more, ends up in 3rd place. That is normal, a bit of underperforming but it's ok.
In the following years he kept buying and buying to the point his squad is so much better than his rivals', I'm sorry but I cannot state this enough. He had the best team in England by far - his bench players would walk in most of his rivals' starting XI.
Leicester and Tottenham couldn't keep with the same team overarchieveing and fell as normal, Arsenal was doing Arsenal things, United kept spending but even in best case scenario would need several years to have at least a good quad (hint: they didn't even do that :D ), Chelsea kept having good to ok squads and Liverpool improved the squad. So imho only Chelsea and Liverpool did have good enough squads to compete with him - but still nowhere near his squads' quality.
And what is the result?
He wins most leagues, losing some to Liverpool and Chelsea (first year). Wins other cups, like the other teams.
And in the CL, with this strong squad, he manages the same real output as Chelsea and Liverpool - 1 victory.

So in his stint he England I would say he did a job SIMILAR to what other good managers would do.
Give the City squad and means to other good managers of this generation (Ancelotti, Mourinho, Conte, Tuchel, Klopp, Zidane, etc), give them the rivals Guardiola had, and I would argue they would have similar results to what he had.
5 Leagues in 7 years, 1 CL in the same period. I would say they would get similar results, probably something like 3/4 Leagues in 7 years and 2 CL in the same period.

So imho what he did and won is in the same ballpark, not above, what other managers would do when in his situation.
I don't pretend to know who is the best (TM) manager but honestly I can't see him being above other good managers of this generation when you contextualise his and the others' contexts.
If the "but he won so context doesn't matter" argument is what you bring, well I respect but I disagree, Santos won an Euro and Deschamps a WC but I don't consider that enough to prove they are better than other national team managers of that generation.
Way too much to read, but I get the jist of it.

I would say that, at least imo, he could become the greatest but is not currently. If he keeps going and wins a bunch more CL's, then he might accomplish it.

He's won 2 trebles I believe, which is a good start, but there are, like with SAF and all managers weaknesses in their claim. Currently I don't think there is a standout defo best ever.
 
This gets into an earlier comment I made about cultural differences.

France Football's list of best managers is: Rinus Michels, Alex Ferguson, Arrigo Sacchi, Johan Cruyff, Pep Guardiola, Valeri Lobanovski, Helenio Herrera, Carlo Ancelotti, Ernst Happel, and Bill Shankly.

The continental managers there like Michels, Sacchi, Cruyff, Guardiola, Herrera, Ancelotti, Happel... they're not known for making struggling teams successful. They're known for either a gloriously successful team (regardless of the circumstances), or for a long track record of success.

If you start taking out managers from this list because "they didn't build a team from scratch" or "didn't take a struggling team and turn it around" then your top ten is mostly going to be people who managed in England.
If you did a tiny bit of research then you'd see that Ajax finished 13th the season before Michels took over and hadn't won the league for 5 years and he led them to the title the next year as well as winning them their first ever European Cup.

The Netherlands was hardly some powerhouse either and he led them to the final in their first appearance at the World Cup since the 30s, with him in charge they also won their one and only major trophy in 88.

That's just the very first name on the list and he clearly did make two struggling sides successful as did SAF which is precisely why those two are ranked as the greatest. There's simply no comparison with doing what Michels did with both Ajax and the Netherlands or what Ferguson did with Aberdeen and United and what Guardiola has done with Barca(European champions a few years prior, semi finalists the year before he joined), Bayern(European champions before and after he left) and Man City(2 out of previous 5 league titles). That's who he's competing against and he doesn't come close. He'll never be held in that regard unless he actually manages something truly special, or manages a team without more resources than the competition. There's no shame in that though.
 
That's who he's competing against and he doesn't come close. He'll never be held in that regard unless he actually manages something truly special, or manages a team without more resources than the competition. There's no shame in that though.

But... he is already, everywhere in real life but the Caf and Twitter :confused:

Do you think there is a majority of managers, footballers, pundits or experts who think he has a long way to go before being compared to SAF or Michels?

Here's a quote from Rio Ferdinand, some deluded footballer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ty-cesc-fabregas-joleon-lescott-b2355312.html

I think it's always important to frame where certain conversations are happening. The idea of Pep not being in that pantheon already (regardless of ranking) is as extreme as flat earth theory, and gets you laughed out of any serious circle.
 
Not that rare, we have Steaua, Red Star type of teams winning the CL, Seville winning EL 5 times in a row, Galatasaray winning UEFA Cup against the mighty Arsenal and Super Cup against Real, and many other examples.. Dinamo Tbilisi won UEFA Cup Winner's Cup two years prior to Aberdeen.

What's really rare is that United gave SAF unlimited credit despite not winning much the first 6-7 years he was at United.. When he joined United, United was already a top contender in the league, a solid top-4 team, yet had to wait for another 7 years to win the league title and their patience obviously paid off. I do not think that any other top team would be that tolerant, certainly no other team outside the UK..

I am pretty sure most top managers such as Ancelotti, Guardiola, Cruyff, Michels, Lippi will be able to win titles at a top 3-4 team (not the most dominant team) if given 6-7 years in a major league..

Your criteria actually makes Mourinho stand out more than any other manager, easily makes him the greatest manager ever with the things he achieved at Porto right away, again using your criteria..

Wasn't United in the relegation zone when Saf took over? Yeah they were 19th. I agree he got time, but that was on the back of his CV and overhauling the club.
 
20 years after everyone who has actually seen a player/manager has died, the only thing relevant will be the 'actual' records. Most of the context and the background 'noise' and non-footballing important matters will be lost. When that happens, Pep will be the greatest, whether we like it or not.
He successfully oversaw the 'young' career of the greatest football talisman in arguably the greatest club side. That fact alone sets him leagues apart from the 'goodish' managers.
 
Wasn't United in the relegation zone when Saf took over? Yeah they were 19th. I agree he got time, but that was on the back of his CV and overhauling the club.

They were 21st when Sir Alex took over in November 1986 and ended up finishing 11th that season before finishing 2nd the following season behind big spending Liverpool.
 
Hypothetically, if Sir Alex still managed United, Pep at City, Klopp at Liverpool, Mou at Chelsea and Wenger at Arsenal, This is how the average PL table will look most of the time:

1. Pep's City
2. SAF United
3. Klopp's Pool
4. Mou's Chelsea
5. Wenger's Arsenal.

The only upsets would mostly be from Sir Alex considering our resources and sometimes from Mou (he would spend another billion more than City).
 
So in his stint he England I would say he did a job SIMILAR to what other good managers would do.
Give the City squad and means to other good managers of this generation (Ancelotti, Mourinho, Conte, Tuchel, Klopp, Zidane, etc), give them the rivals Guardiola had, and I would argue they would have similar results to what he had.
5 Leagues in 7 years, 1 CL in the same period. I would say they would get similar results, probably something like 3/4 Leagues in 7 years and 2 CL in the same period.

This is you ASSUMING they'd have similar records.

Mou in 12 years at Chelsea, Madrid and United has 4 league titles and 0 CL, his average span as a manager is between 2-3 years, yet you want people to believe he'd last 7 years at City and win 5 leagues and 2 CL? Nothing suggest he could do this. Same with Tuchel and Conte, their life span as managers is small and they've also not shown capability lasting at the top, Conte league record is great, but his record in the CL is poorer then any other top manager. Conte and Tuchel also have serious issue with talent ID and they'd fall out with City DoF as they have in many of their pervious clubs. Ancelotti lasted 8 years at Milan, after that he barely last 3 years anywhere else like Chelsea, PSG, RM, Bayern Munich and RM (3rd year now), yet in that period of 11 year he has 4 league titles 2 CL, Ancelotti also is probably the worst when it comes to building teams in that list, he'd take over a City team that finish 4th with 66 pts level with United at 5th and that was the 3rd oldest squad, nothing has suggested he'd create some monstrous team. Klopp has lasted longer at teams, but largely underdog team, as we see with Mou it isn't easy coaching at the top, so no guarantee of anything there either. Zidane has a small sample size for me to judge.

You're also forgetting that we could've seen Pep at either Chelsea or United and spending there billions in that time to compete, which doesn't assure them to win that many leagues. Also Klopp Liverpool could've won those leagues where they got 93 and 97 pts ahead of City.

Mou, Carlo and Pep are comparable in terms of top clubs, so lets see

Mou 12 season at Chelsea, Madrid, United = 14 titles (4 leagues, 0 CL), averaging 1.1 title per season
Carlo 20 season at Juventus, Milan, Chelsea, PSG, Madrid, Bayern = 22 titles (5 leagues, 4 CL), 1.1 title per season
Pep 14 season at Barcelona, Bayern Munich, City = 36 titles (11 leagues, 3 CL), 2.5 titles per season

Nothing suggest to me they'd have the exact same results as Pep.
 
Hypothetically, if Sir Alex still managed United, Pep at City, Klopp at Liverpool, Mou at Chelsea and Wenger at Arsenal, This is how the average PL table will look most of the time:

1. Pep's City
2. SAF United
3. Klopp's Pool
4. Mou's Chelsea
5. Wenger's Arsenal.

The only upsets would mostly be from Sir Alex considering our resources and sometimes from Mou (he would spend another billion more than City).

I doubt Pep would have taken the job if he would had to have gone up against Prime Fergie, Prime Wenger, and Prime Mourinho as it would have been too difficult for him
 
Last edited:
20 years after everyone who has actually seen a player/manager has died, the only thing relevant will be the 'actual' records. Most of the context and the background 'noise' and non-footballing important matters will be lost. When that happens, Pep will be the greatest, whether we like it or not.
He successfully oversaw the 'young' career of the greatest football talisman in arguably the greatest club side. That fact alone sets him leagues apart from the 'goodish' managers.
Context always has and always will matter. All you're saying is that people will lose the power of reasoning over time. This is a discussion we're having now, not in 20 years so either put up a good argument for him being better than Ferguson and Michels or just accept that he's not there yet.

Lance Armstrong also had some pretty good records btw, so we'll have to wait and see what history really tells us about Pep and this City team. There are already huge question marks over his Barca team as well despite all their great players. Chelsea and Madrid fans will surely know what I'm talking about if they're old enough to remember the 2009 and 2011 CL semis and that these egregious refereeing errors in Barca's favour weren't isolated to La Liga.

His only stint that is completely clean is Bayern and he failed to even make one CL final despite them winning the competition before and after he left.