Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[iamking]

I doubt Pep would have taken tbe 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

Sure. It would have been 'too difficult' for him. He would be scared. hahaha. Jokes aside, Pep's team are a machine in the league. I can't think of any other team that can so comprehensively dismantle high quality low block teams with such consistency as much as Pep has. That's what wins the league. Sir Alex would be next in line, followed by Klopp/Wenger. Mou relied too much on percentage football and individual quality of his attacking players to nick a goal and then had a fantastic defense organisation to shut up shop. His system works as long as he had the best billion dollar team in the league (Like the Chelsea 05 team).

Despite all the complaints against Pep spending millions, his system is the real winner of the league. Halaand or not, KDB or not, Pep's system is still geared to decimate low block teams. John Stones/Nathan Ake and the likes, would look like an average Johnny Evans in most teams but in Pep's system they are a super star. The man sold the supposedly best attacking LB of the league in Cancelo at the middle of a season and then goes on to win the Treble. Pep is the GOAT. If he goes to a national side and completes the international collection, it would be very hard to argue against him.

 

[Camara]

This is you ASSUMING they'd have similar records.

In your analysis you completely missed the context that is fundamental.
Guardiola getting premier leagues in this 2017-2023 era with the best squad in the league by far is not the same as getting premier leagues in the 2000s with United, Arsenal and Chelsea all having consistently very strong squads.
Put Guardiola in SAF, Wenger or Mourinho place in that era and put one of them in current Pep's City.

 

[Care_de_Bobo]

I doubt Pep would have taken tbe 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

Exactly. Even in Spain he went up against peak Mourinho for two seasons, first season he won the league having a far more settled team and won their CL tie thanks to the softest red card for Pepe you'll see in your life and the most mystifying disallowed goal in the second leg. In the second season Mourinho's Madrid broke the points record and, in the process, Pep who then had to move to Germany for some guaranteed league titles that even Niko Kovac was able to win.

In England his nearest competitors have been Klopp who has had nowhere near the same resources, a broken Mourinho, Arteta and Ole. Conte's Chelsea were competitive for one season and came out on top. Guardiola also inherited a squad full of top players and has spent silly money to finally be able to claim another CL. Hardly a testament to greatness.

 

[Hammondo]

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.

It's a very United mentality though, why does being successful with a weaker team mean so much for you?

 

[Hammondo]

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

I think he would love it, he's already gone up against mourinho and won, and beaten SAF in the CL multiple times. Why would he be intimidated?

 

[iamking]

Exactly. Even in Spain he went up against peak Mourinho for two seasons, first season he won the league having a far more settled team and won their CL tie thanks to the softest red card for Pepe you'll see in your life and the most mystifying disallowed goal in the second leg. In the second season Mourinho's Madrid broke the points record and, in the process, Pep who then had to move to Germany for some guaranteed league titles that even Niko Kovac was able to win.

In England his nearest competitors have been Klopp who has had nowhere near the same resources, a broken Mourinho, Arteta and Ole. Conte's Chelsea were competitive for one season and came out on top. Guardiola also inherited a squad full of top players and has spent silly money to finally be able to claim another CL. Hardly a testament to greatness.

Without Doubt Madrid had a phenomenal season under Mourinho that year, but, using this as a premise for Mourinho being better than Pep is misleading. The el classico (2011-2012) results should show you how they fared against each other.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

The only manager to have reached the semi-finals of the CL 10 times (and in just 15 years), but, yeah, he should be doing better.

 

[BobFromParva]

In your analysis you completely missed the context that is fundamental.
Guardiola getting premier leagues in this 2017-2023 era with the best squad in the league by far is not the same as getting premier leagues in the 2000s with United, Arsenal and Chelsea all having consistently very strong squads.
Put Guardiola in SAF, Wenger or Mourinho place in that era and put one of them in current Pep's City.

Please don’t read this to mean that I’m having a pop at you Cam, it’s just that I‘ d seen that whacky misconception a few times too many now.
Basically, I think that you (and some others) miss the point that his senior squad is one of the smallest in the PL but his players combine to look like the best players in the league (and win it with tedious regularity) because his systems of play utilise their skill sets to the full in creating a functioning footballing unit.
He takes individuals and combines them to make a functioning team, some cheap as chips and some expensive, and no he doesn’t always get it right because some players can’t adapt to his demands, but he mostly does (I can’t get into the detail here because I don’t read up on them in particular / don’t watch their games every week etc. but you’ll appreciate my direction).

Please think about it, as an example very close to home, pep tried to sign both Sanchez and Harry Maguire but Utd bought them by paying more that city valued them at.
Under Pep you can bet your bottom dollar that 2 such established players with big price tags and PL credentials would have thrived and looked a snip at the price (no way he would have sanctioned such huge investments without being pretty damn sure he could get a tune out of them) but under Utd they both disappeared like many before and many after.
Were Ake, Akanji or Gomez superstars when he bought them? Did they stop his small senior squad from hoovering up honours?
I think not.

I don’t support either club so I don’t wear red or blue tints, I’m just saying it how almost every none city or Utd football supporter that I meet see it (btw I don’t include the red scouse in this because I don’t talk to deluded fools and I don’t know any Arsenal supporters because they don’t seem to exist in Shropshire).
In my, admittedly limited getaboutandtalkaboutery, they all see Pep taking great players and making them greater under his system. . . Sometimes great to keep and sometimes great to sell on for a big fat profit so that he has the funds to go again - then someone pops up with the old ‘he couldn’t do it without the biggest investment in the greatest players’ one liner, and all the none influenced football supporters drink up and move on to the next pub down the road because they’re trying to have a night out and don’t want to get into an argument with someone who’s club have the biggest gross trading deficit for players in the last decade but who chooses to make out the Pep has somehow bought success.

Hands up though, if Pep had gone to Utd and been allowed your level of player trading deficit for the last decade them IMO (and, if you’re honest, in your IMO too) he’d not only have won all he’s won but won more on top with the financial reigns let so loose.

And, for the avoidance of doubt and my own sense of decency, I wouldn’t have written that on a city fan forum because they’re getting too up themselves nowadays. But the truth must out eh?

 

[sirAlexsglasses]

Will never be the GOAT for me. Needs to do it where he doesn't have all the resources in the world or not in a one team league.

If not with a lesser club, needs a world cup victory. One or the other.

Absolutely agree he hasn’t had to really build anything , and he has always had unlimited funds, could he do what SAF did at Aberdeen……I do t think so.

 

[Camara]

I think he would love it, he's already gone up against mourinho and won, and beaten SAF in the CL multiple times. Why would he be intimidated?

Up against Mourinho and won? He only did when he had a vastly better team, which is actually most times.
With Inter Mourinho had a worse team and won.
In Real Pep did have a better team and situation and won the first year and lost in the second.
In Bayern Pep had a much much better job in the european supercup with the Bayern treble winning team while Mourinho had Europa League winner Chelsea. Pep won obviously (actually only right at the end).
Then Pep went to City that had miles better squad and means that Mourinho had with United (horrendous squad) and Tottenham (not in the same league at all).

Again the same situation everywhere you look: Pep wins when he has everything going for him and his rivals are in a much worse situation.

 

[Hammondo]

Up against Mourinho and won? He only did when he had a vastly better team, which is actually most times.
With Inter Mourinho had a worse team and won.
In Real Pep did have a better team and situation and won the first year and lost in the second.
In Bayern Pep had a much much better job in the european supercup with the Bayern treble winning team while Mourinho had Europa League winner Chelsea. Pep won obviously (actually only right at the end).
Then Pep went to City that had miles better squad and means that Mourinho had with United (horrendous squad) and Tottenham (not in the same league at all).

Again the same situation everywhere you look: Pep wins when he has everything going for him and his rivals are in a much worse situation.

What you mean is, out of all the times they met, Mourinho won how often compared to losing?

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

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.

In the five years before Michels' appointment, Ajax finished 13th, 5th, 2nd, 4th, and 2nd. The 13th is a massive outlier and clearly not representative.

But this goes to my earlier point: consistency.

Guardiola took over a Barcelona team that finished 18 points behind Real Madrid in the league. The club's president, Joan Laporta, barely survived a motion of no confidence the summer in which he appointed Guardiola. Yet his detractors here act like he took over the best team in the world in the best conditions anyone could want. It's laughable.

 

[United Hobbit]

No SAF for me, doesn't help Pep was aided by the 115 charges

If he could come to us and within 3 years win us at least a Pl or CL with our usual spend, improve players while also bringing through youth, have such a system that "average" players make a part of the whole rather than stick out like sore thumbs etc

Pep has the luxury of multiple options at City, I'd be interested to see what happens if Haaland gets injured but oh wait they have Alvarez must be nice to have such a back up

The 115 charges will always hang like a cloud over any of City's trophies for me. Had he done all that without oil money and 115 charges, my view would perhaps lean towards him being at least equal to SAF

We will never see another SAF especially in terms of longevity.

 

[Hammondo]

No SAF for me, doesn't help Pep was aided by the 115 charges

If he could come to us and within 3 years win us at least a Pl or CL with our usual spend, improve players while also bringing through youth, have such a system that "average" players make a part of the whole rather than stick out like sore thumbs etc

Pep has the luxury of multiple options at City, I'd be interested to see what happens if Haaland gets injured but oh wait they have Alvarez must be nice to have such a back up

The 115 charges will always hang like a cloud over any of City's trophies for me. Had he done all that without oil money and 115 charges, my view would perhaps lean towards him being at least equal to SAF

We will never see another SAF especially in terms of longevity.

He did pretty well without a striker as well...

I honestly don't understand the importance of joining a weaker side, I don't even think United would count because we spend a HUGE amount.

 

[RedRocket9908]

In the five years before Michels' appointment, Ajax finished 13th, 5th, 2nd, 4th, and 2nd. The 13th is a massive outlier and clearly not representative.

But this goes to my earlier point: consistency.

Guardiola took over a Barcelona team that finished 18 points behind Real Madrid in the league. The club's president, Joan Laporta, barely survived a motion of no confidence the summer in which he appointed Guardiola. Yet his detractors here act like he took over the best team in the world in the best conditions anyone could want. It's laughable.

The only reason they finished 18 points behind is because they lost both El Classico's, had they have won them they would have only finished 6 points behind.

They also reached the European Cup Semi Final the season before Pep arrived before being knocked out by us at Old Trafford.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

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

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.

Yeah this debate isn't too different than the people who claim Messi "isn't all that."

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The only reason they finished 18 poibts behind is because they lost both El Classico's, had they have won them they would have only finished 6 points behind.

The only reason they didn't finish with 114 points is because they didn't win every game, had they won them they would have finished with 114 points.

They also reached the European Cup Semi Final the season before Pep arrived before being knocked out by us at Old Trafford.

They played Celtic and Schalke in the knockouts, as soon as they played a solid team they were gone.

 

[stefan92]

In the five years before Michels' appointment, Ajax finished 13th, 5th, 2nd, 4th, and 2nd. The 13th is a massive outlier and clearly not representative.

But this goes to my earlier point: consistency.

Guardiola took over a Barcelona team that finished 18 points behind Real Madrid in the league. The club's president, Joan Laporta, barely survived a motion of no confidence the summer in which he appointed Guardiola. Yet his detractors here act like he took over the best team in the world in the best conditions anyone could want. It's laughable.

Pep might be the GOAT in raising the floor of his teams, which leads to amazing consistency and an amount of league wins that is really unparalleled.

But he lacks a lot in raising the heights of his teams, which Klopp or Mou truly proved to be able to during unexpected CL runs, while Pep more often than not failed against some game raising minnow.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

But he lacks a lot in raising the heights of his teams, which Klopp or Mou truly proved to be able to during unexpected CL runs, while Pep more often than not failed against some game raising minnow.

I definitely agree that Guardiola should do a little better in the CL.

But don't you think you're overrating these guys a bit?

Mourinho has taken his teams to 2 CL finals ever, one of them in a freak year where all semifinalists were underdogs. He hasn't done anything at all in the competition since a decade ago.

Klopp has a better record at taking his teams to finals, but they don't win them. He's won 1 CL, against perennial losers Spurs (who were undoubtedly a worse team than Liverpool).

 

[kaiser1]

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

Didnt Pep smack Wenger Mourinho and Ferguson regularly?

Mourinho joined Man Utd the same summer that Pep joined City

 

[DoneDaDa]

In your analysis you completely missed the context that is fundamental.
Guardiola getting premier leagues in this 2017-2023 era with the best squad in the league by far is not the same as getting premier leagues in the 2000s with United, Arsenal and Chelsea all having consistently very strong squads.
Put Guardiola in SAF, Wenger or Mourinho place in that era and put one of them in current Pep's City.

City finished 4th with 66 points the season before he took over and to you that was the best team in the league by far? He created this team, while Chelsea and United hired managers like Mou, Tuchel, Conte to combat him and gave them 100's of millions to spend also, which they ultimately fell short .

There has been 3 English CL winners in the 2016-2023 era, they're also has been 2 all English finals and grand total of 7 finalist out of 14 (50% and 4 different English teams) in the CL in 7 years were English teams. PL in the past 7 years City x5, Liverpool and Chelsea x1 each. Compared to the 7 years from 2000, 1 English CL winner Liverpool, 3 English CL finalist Liverpool x2 and Arsenal. In the PL United x3, Chelsea x2, Arsenal x2 were league winners.

Now mind you i used a 7 year period for both as you bought up 2016-2023 era, so if you wanted you can change the time frame like there was an all English final in 2008, plus another English final in 2009, but these may knock some of Aresnal league titles away if were judging from a 7 year period.

Now other stats to look at strength of the teams, in 2000-2007 era the biggest gap between 1st and 2nd was 5 pts, in 2016-2023 era the biggest gap was 1 point x2 and 5 pts. Chelsea have hit 95 points, Liverpool 93 and 97 points, City 100, 98, and 94 pts in 2016-2023 era. In 2000-2007 only Chelsea broke the barrier of 90 points x2. However in 2000-2007 biggest title win was 13-14 pts (Chelsea), while 2016-2023 biggest title win was 19 pts and 18 pts (City and Liverpool).

In 2000-2007 manager in the PL were Sir Alex, Wenger, Mourinho, and Rafa to a lesser extent Ranieri, Pardew, Grant and Moyes or guys like Hodgson, Allardyce and Pulis. Only CL winners were Sir Alex, Mou and Rafa. Compared to 2016-2023, Pep, Klopp, Mou x2, Tuchel, Conte x2 to a lesser extent Wenger, Poch x2, Emery x2, Ancelotti, Sarri, Rafa, De Zerbi, Howe, Frank, Arteta, and CL winners Pep, Mou, Klopp, Tuchel, Ancelotti and Rafa. I think it's quite clear the the 2016-2023 era has had a higher profile of managers in the PL.

EPL teams from 2016-2023 are stronger overall then the 2000's.

I'm not denying managers wouldn't have some success with City, but I'm disputing them having the same level of success Pep has had there. It's like me saying if you put Haaland or Mbappe in the Barcelona from 2006-2015 or Real Madrid from 2014-2023, they'd be able to do the same Messi and Ronaldo have done, which is not true, they'd win titles even win.a CL, but they wouldn't have the same dominance, aura and consistency the other 2 have had. The same here in this situation, other managers can win, but they won't at the level and consistency Pep has.

 

[MrMarcello]

In the five years before Michels' appointment, Ajax finished 13th, 5th, 2nd, 4th, and 2nd. The 13th is a massive outlier and clearly not representative.

But this goes to my earlier point: consistency.

Guardiola took over a Barcelona team that finished 18 points behind Real Madrid in the league. The club's president, Joan Laporta, barely survived a motion of no confidence the summer in which he appointed Guardiola. Yet his detractors here act like he took over the best team in the world in the best conditions anyone could want. It's laughable.

The same Barca that lost 2006-07 La Liga on head-to-head results after consecutive league wins. You're literally correcting another poster over Michels while reversing an argument to your favor without acknowledging Barca had an outlier season in 2007-08, one in which they also reached the CL semis.

 

[PepG]

Pep's legacy is only one word: consistency. He is the most consistent in success manager that i have ever seen. No matter how many trophies he would win till the end of his career, no other top manager bar may be SAF continued to be at the top level for such a long time..some will say Guardiola peaked at Barcelona but the fact is he is actually a better manager now..incredible..

 

[Swoobs]

The only manager to have reached the semi-finals of the CL 10 times (and in just 15 years), but, yeah, he should be doing better.

Plus only manager to win more than 1 treble (top european leagues, no time to research on other continents), only manager to win all trophies available in a year. He is just like messi, people who wants to downplay him put double standard expectations on him, as if those other managers had no negatives and that they achieved the same thing as him. I mean we even have people hailing simeone and mourinho above him

 

[stefan92]

only manager to win all trophies available in a year.

No, Flick did win the sextuple as well with Bayern (Bundesliga, German cup, Champions League, Club World Cup, German and UEFA Supercup)

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The same Barca that lost 2006-07 La Liga on head-to-head results after consecutive league wins. You're literally correcting another poster over Michels while reversing an argument to your favor without acknowledging Barca had an outlier season in 2007-08, one in which they also reached the CL semis.

2007-2008 wasn't an outlier season. It was in line with Barcelona's 2006-2007 season.

In 06-07, Barcelona lost the European Supercup (0-3 agaisnt Sevilla), the FIFA Club World Cup (1-0 against Internacional), and suffered an embarrassing elimination from the Copa del Rey (losing 0-4 at home to Getafe). They were 2nd in their CL group and were eliminated in the R16 by Liverpool. In the league, they finished with 76 points, 6 points behind in the league compared to their previous season (76 to 82).

You can go to the wikipedia entry for that season, and it says:

This was the first of two bad seasons for the club, which led to great changes in the roster and direction.

It is the CL semifinal that is the outlier, and an easily explainable one: they only had to beat Celtic and Schalke to get there.

And hey: I'm not arguing that Barcelona were in some catastrophic situation, that they were reborn from the ashes, anything of the sort. I am correctly disputing the complete nonsense spouted here, that it was the easiest job in the world.

The only explanation I can think of for this bizarre alternate reality is that the CL semifinal of 08 was between Barcelona and United, and it was a pretty narrow win. Maybe that skews people's perspective. Who knows.

 

[Swoobs]

No, Flick did win the sextuple as well with Bayern (Bundesliga, German cup, Champions League, Club World Cup, German and UEFA Supercup)

Ah ok, thanks for that information. I stand corrected

 

[garelo]

He's ruined football for me and no, i'm not talking about trophies he won at City but the type of football that is so prominent today is his legacy and i hate it with passion.

 

[Ed9]

SAF obviously but he might be second.

 

[Hammondo]

2007-2008 wasn't an outlier season. It was in line with Barcelona's 2006-2007 season.

In 06-07, Barcelona lost the European Supercup (0-3 agaisnt Sevilla), the FIFA Club World Cup (1-0 against Internacional), and suffered an embarrassing elimination from the Copa del Rey (losing 0-4 at home to Getafe). They were 2nd in their CL group and were eliminated in the R16 by Liverpool. In the league, they finished with 76 points, 6 points behind in the league compared to their previous season (76 to 82).

You can go to the wikipedia entry for that season, and it says:



It is the CL semifinal that is the outlier, and an easily explainable one: they only had to beat Celtic and Schalke to get there.

And hey: I'm not arguing that Barcelona were in some catastrophic situation, that they were reborn from the ashes, anything of the sort. I am correctly disputing the complete nonsense spouted here, that it was the easiest job in the world.

The only explanation I can think of for this bizarre alternate reality is that the CL semifinal of 08 was between Barcelona and United, and it was a pretty narrow win. Maybe that skews people's perspective. Who knows.

Scholes has admitted his goal was a fluke also.

 

[kaiser1]

"After winning 3-1 and 4-0 in our first two games, there was talk about not being too happy about way we played! Top club mentality." - Harry Kane

This is what coaches at top clubs have to deal with every matchday. Its not acceptable to play well and lose, Its not acceptable to play badly and win. You must play well everygame and win

 

[Bestietom]

No, SAF was the best. Pep, same as Mourinho, are Fat Wallet managers. Give Fergie or Wenger freedom to spend whatever they like and they would be in same boat.

 

[Revan]

Absolutely agree he hasn’t had to really build anything , and he has always had unlimited funds, could he do what SAF did at Aberdeen……I do t think so.

This is just so weird. It is taking some value of SAF, and then asking Pep to do it. I mean it makes no sense, but let’s do the reverse.

SAF was a great manager. But can he win a treble before he is 40… I do t think so.

Or can SAF win league titles in three different big leagues? I mean, he probably could have done so, but he would have needed to leave United for it to happen. And there was no reason for him to leave United to please people in the internet. Same for Pep. He probably could do what Unai Emery did 5 times or so, or what some random manager of BVB almost did, or what Ranieri did, but why he should accept a job that is paid 5 times less and has worse players to work with when he could select the club he wants?

———————

They are very different managers and there is no need for Pep to do for what SAF did (and then a million things that SAF didn’t) for Pep to surpass SAF. Winning with a lesser team in particular makes no sense. If he would be at a lesser team, it is effectively a demotion, so he would have needed to fail at his current job something that he never does. If he leaves City right now, and he is open to a new job, I think every big team (probably not United cause we are weird) would try to get him. So why would he need to go to a lesser team to make happy people in the internet, where big teams that pay more and give a higher chance of success would want him.

For what is worth, I think that things that really matter are: a) number of big trophies won, b) influence in the game, c) how dominant his teams have been.

a) he still lags behind SAF, but it is very likely that when their careers are over, he will be well ahead. He already has 11 big league titles, SAF has 13 (15 if you found Scotland). So Pep would likely need another 2 years to reach the former, and maybe 5 for the latter. While already having more UCLs (and he will likely win more).

b) Pep is the most influential manager since Rinus Michel. Every team now does pass and move, every team presses like crazy, every team plays from the back, every team is focused in the midfield. He pretty much homogenized football from many styles to a style that try to copy what he is doing.

c) dominance in football -> maybe except a few matches in his first season at City, I think he has started every match on his career are favorites. They have been the team to beat in whatever league he was, against whatever team he faced. Dominant big teams had to change tactics and go for some counter attacking football when playing his teams (or look like fools such as SAF’s United or Wenger’s Arsenal). Since I watch football, that has never been the case for any other manager. And yes, quite often they lost matches, in UCL some were particularly shocking (losing against Monaco and Lyon, getting embarrassed 5-0 by Ancelotti’s Madrid), but every big manager had these shocking defeats (SAF couldn’t even reach the KO stage twice in this century).

I think by the end of his career this won’t even be a debate. It will be even less a question than the equally stupid ‘is Messi the best ever player?’

 

[MrMarcello]

b) Pep is the most influential manager since Rinus Michel. Every team now does pass and move, every team presses like crazy, every team plays from the back, every team is focused in the midfield. He pretty much homogenized football from many styles to a style that try to copy what he is doing.

Curious to know - Spain started using the tiki-taka style around 2006 but Pep is often credited for the style of play. Spain also dominated for three championship cycles with this style employed by Aragones and Del Bosque, but they're never mentioned.
Is is that Barca's dominance is attached to this style and thus Pep made it "famous"? Are there subtle or obvious differences in the styles employed?
Is it fair to say at Barca the style worked largely because Pep had Messi let alone the famous midfield trio?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...aka-its-rubbish-and-completely-pointless.html
In this interview, he's seemingly dismissing the style and telling the obvious - overload one side of the pitch to expose and attack the opposition on the other side of the pitch. Haven't managers done this for decades?

 

[kaiser1]

Curious to know - Spain started using the tiki-taka style around 2006 but Pep is often credited for the style of play. Spain also dominated for three championship cycles with this style employed by Aragones and Del Bosque, but they're never mentioned.
Is is that Barca's dominance is attached to this style and thus Pep made it "famous"? Are there subtle or obvious differences in the styles employed?
Is it fair to say at Barca the style worked largely because Pep had Messi let alone the famous midfield trio?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...aka-its-rubbish-and-completely-pointless.html
In this interview, he's seemingly dismissing the style and telling the obvious - overload one side of the pitch to expose and attack the opposition on the other side of the pitch. Haven't managers done this for decades?

Spain in 2006 and 2008 were more vertical. They were using Senna in DM Torres in attack. By 2010 and 2012 they went Full Pep tiki taka and actually stopped using strikers. Fabregas was playing top striker and passing the opposition to sleep
Around 2010-2012, Spain starting 11 was about 6 Barcelona players

 

[TheLord]

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.

If you read my post well, I talked in the future tense. The entire idea of "context" is lost with time - it slowly fades and eventually disappears. That is how 99% of history is and it has nothing to do with human reasoning.

 

[Camara]

Spain in 2006 and 2008 were more vertical. They were using Senna in DM Torres in attack. By 2010 and 2012 they went Full Pep tiki taka and actually stopped using strikers. Fabregas was playing top striker and passing the opposition to sleep
Around 2010-2012, Spain starting 11 was about 6 Barcelona players

In 2010 they always used David Villa as striker/forward and sometimes Torres as well, by 2012 is when they stopped using strikers.

 

[Dancfc]

The mental gymnastics it must take to try and deny Pep is a great manager....

 

[kaiser1]

In 2010 they always used David Villa as striker/forward and sometimes Torres as well, by 2012 is when they stopped using strikers.

Which shows Spain was following Pep/Barcelona. Till 2010, Pep was using Etoo/Zlatan as striker, when Pep went full false 9, Spain followed

 

[erikcred]

The mental gymnastics it must take to try and deny Pep is a great manager....

The mental gymnastics it must take to refuse to read the title. Or may be just trouble with the language? "Great" is not the same as "greatest of all time".