Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?

[Diego_Milito]

I talk to a lot of football fans from Germany, Italy, Spain etc. who never saw SAF as the GOAT.

This is like a Premier League echo chamber where people act like there's an obligation to call SAF as the GOAT. All these nations have their own legends and superior leagues during most of SAF's tenure at United. No way an average Italian will put SAF over someone like Lippi or Ancelotti for example.

And, this makes a lot of sense. Why should La Liga - Serie A fans prioritize success in inferior Premier League when they had the best leagues & players? Especially in the light of SAF's underwhelming performance at UCL and other top PL teams' regular failures like Arsenal in the UCL, the team that came closest to United during SAF's tenure.

Pep has left his mark in a dominant fashion wherever he has been, and never fell from grace. He has already dominated Premier League (SAF's home) like no other.

I am Italian and confirm what you said. SAF is held in high regard, among the best, but it is extremely rare to hear anyone call him the best ever.
Marcello Lippi is the best Italian manager of all time, dominating in the UCL for years while simultaneously winning the World Cup for Italy.
In the process, he reached 4 UCL finals (three in a row!), won one (his only stain) and also managed to knock out Man United (and SAF).
When United beat Juventus in 1998/1999, Lippi had already left Juventus, and Ancelotti was in fact the one SAF knocked out.

So yes, what you say is absolutely true. Why should we rate SAF as better than, say, Lippi?
Personally, I think an argument about SAF being the best ever could be made, but he has in no way a better case than Lippi.

 

[Chumpsbechumps]

This is exactly the way I see it, I don't regard Ferguson that high. Hitzfeld beat him almost regularly save for the last 2mins of the 99 final. What I remember more is Ferguson getting embarrassed in the CL many seasons
Ferguson had the most stability of any manager in that time and won 2 CL titles

English teams weren’t allowed in Europe when Ferguson took over. Took them the guts of 20 years to really catch-up.

When United won the treble , serie A was the top league with the big players and the big wages. He didn’t just win the treble , he did it by beating the two strongest teams in the strongest league and Barca and Bayern (both with bigger teams/budgets) along the way.

Prob wasn’t until 2001 that the budget constraint were finally addressed. At that time chelsea came in and robbed our shopping list and threw stupid money at players , warping the league.

Then pep, with his greatest side ever, won 2 CL finals against United. We had to sell Ronaldo, no such worries for pep.

You see, pep has pretty much had everything he’s ever wanted. Always managed teams that should be winning, that win before he joins and win after he joins. He’s only managed sure things with relative unlimited resources to all but one or two clubs in the world.

Id argue he should have won more CLs with the resources he’s had. I’d also argue he’s not doing anything he shouldn’t be doing. City started getting the club ready for him before he even joined. Who gets that?

His silverware has been extremely impresive. But saying that’s what makes him great is like saying George Best wasn’t as good a footballer because of his international career. There’s no expanded context to why a player/manager might not have as big a trophy haul if all you do are is look at their honors.

 

[kaiser1]

In 1998-99 Man Utd drew eachother twice in the group stage. And in the final United where missing Keane and Scholes. They still won the final though.

So im not really sure how Hitzfeld beat him regularly considering he didn't beat once.

1997 CL semi Hitzfeld's Dortmund beat Man Utd home and away and won the CL
2001 CL quarters Hitzfeld's Bayern beat Man Utd home and away and won the CL
Their head to head I have it 4-1
In 99 final Bayern also missed Elber and Lizarazu

 

[Gehrman]

1997 CL semi Dortmund beat Man Utd home and away
2001 CL quarters Bayern beat Man Utd home and away

In 99 final Bayern also missed Elber and Lizarazu

Yeah my bad.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

This is exactly the way I see it, I don't regard Ferguson that high. Hitzfeld beat him almost regularly save for the last 2mins of the 99 final. What I remember more is Ferguson getting embarrassed in the CL many seasons
Ferguson had the most stability of any manager in that time and won 2 CL titles

Yeah ok I'm out on this thread. Laughable.

 

[Cassidy]

That's wages, not buying players.

Where did I say buying players or is that the only spending a club does? They don’t need to offer and pay wages and agent fees etc

 

[Hammondo]

Where did I say buying players or is that the only spending a club does? They don’t need to offer and pay wages and agent fees etc

Because you responded to a comment in a conversation about netball transfer spending. Do you read what was being talked about?

 

[chamartin]

Why?

@thisisnottaken1's granddad could win a CL with that Real team

What a stupid and disrespectful comment. Maybe next time think before you post something.

2014 - Madrid had great players but they weren't the favourite to win the UCL. Bayern and Barcelona were. Madrid had been waiting 12 years , the pressure was huge. Ancelotti came and won it in his first season at the club.
2022 - Do I even need to elaborate on this? Maybe you have a very short memory.
Current season - Again, they were nowhere near among favourites. I bet that you were one of those people that didn't give them any chance before the season.
According to the press and fans (redcafe included) it was impossible to win the UCL without a prolific nr 9, let alone after the injuries of Courtois, Alaba and Militao. And of course having to compete against "mighty" City.

I don't know who is the best manager of all time but Ancelotti must the best manager in the CL history (at least since the reform)

Guardiola? So many years, so much money spend, so many charges and only one CL. Really, if you want to win the CL, let alone dominate it, just don't hire him.
He is lucky that last season Madrid were old because City would be still chasing their first European Cup. To win the CL repeatedly you need a versatile team that can adapt and play different styles of football. He just can't do it. He is just too obsessive with ball because without it he doesn't have a clue what to do. And if he looses he and his disciples tend to take the moral high ground. Listen to what that buffoon Rodri says. He has the audacity to tell the clubs such as Real Madrid and Arsenal how they should play football. The clubs that are at least 115 times bigger than City.

And no, his granddad, my granddad or your granddad couldn't win the CL with Real Madrid. I'm sure even Guardiola couldn't. He wouldn't even last 2 season at the Bernabeu. If he berated Madrid players publically like he usually does they would turn on him very quickly, and rightly so.

 

[heraklion]

I am Italian and confirm what you said. SAF is held in high regard, among the best, but it is extremely rare to hear anyone call him the best ever.
Marcello Lippi is the best Italian manager of all time, dominating in the UCL for years while simultaneously winning the World Cup for Italy.
In the process, he reached 4 UCL finals (three in a row!), won one (his only stain) and also managed to knock out Man United (and SAF).
When United beat Juventus in 1998/1999, Lippi had already left Juventus, and Ancelotti was in fact the one SAF knocked out.

So yes, what you say is absolutely true. Why should we rate SAF as better than, say, Lippi?
Personally, I think an argument about SAF being the best ever could be made, but he has in no way a better case than Lippi.

Exactly, everybody respects SAF and sees him as one of the best, but ignoring other top leagues such as Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, their history and realities when making a case for the best ever is just too naive.

 

[NK86]

He is without a doubt in contention for GOAT as he is perhaps one of the best tacticians to have managed in this game. His record clearly suggests the same.

However, people cannot close their eyes to City’s “alleged” cheating when calling out his achievements. That will always be an asterisk against his record breaking success with City, and perhaps the main reason why he cannot be considered the GOAT yet.

 

[mu4c_20le]

I am Italian and confirm what you said. SAF is held in high regard, among the best, but it is extremely rare to hear anyone call him the best ever.
Marcello Lippi is the best Italian manager of all time, dominating in the UCL for years while simultaneously winning the World Cup for Italy.
In the process, he reached 4 UCL finals (three in a row!), won one (his only stain) and also managed to knock out Man United (and SAF).
When United beat Juventus in 1998/1999, Lippi had already left Juventus, and Ancelotti was in fact the one SAF knocked out.

So yes, what you say is absolutely true. Why should we rate SAF as better than, say, Lippi?
Personally, I think an argument about SAF being the best ever could be made, but he has in no way a better case than Lippi.

Local fans in rating their own nations managers shocker

 

[mancsarered]

Every time I think about this question I end up talking out both sides of my mouth.

Pep might end his career with the most impressive CV in history of management, and he's essentially changed the way the game is thought of globally from the tactical side. Does that make him the GOAT? There's a strong case.

However, I don't there's anything he could do to have the same legacy as Sir Alex. He has managed the biggest clubs in the world with unlimited squad-building resources (in the case of Barca there was no assembly required), and built his early career on the back of the greatest footballer the world has ever seen.

Until Pep takes an undersized club to European success or brings a legacy club back from the brink of obscurity, we're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Taribo's Gap]

Every time I think about this question I end up talking out both sides of my mouth.

Pep might end his career with the most impressive CV in history of management, and he's essentially changed the way the game is thought of globally from the tactical side. Does that make him the GOAT? There's a strong case.

However, I don't there's anything he could do to have the same legacy as Sir Alex. He has managed the biggest clubs in the world with unlimited squad-building resources (in the case of Barca there was no assembly required), and built his early career on the back of the greatest footballer the world has ever seen.

Until Pep takes an undersized club to European success or brings a legacy club back from the brink of obscurity, we're comparing apples to oranges.

You don't need to have the same legacy and achieve the same exact benchmarks to have a greater legacy. Pep has things that SAF doesn't. SAF has things that Michels and Sacchi don't. Ancelotti has things that the rest don't Etc.

If there were some standard checklist or rubric, then this would be a pretty routine exercise. So many managers who are considered greats have not done the whole underdog routine.

 

[mav_9me]

I don't think there is a single greatest manager. So many have many great arguments for themselves.

What I do want to say is Pep is absolutely among them. Not so much for what he has won, but his tactical flexibility. I don't get how he went from an awesome CB partnership of Stones/Dias (with Stones as a libero?) to this no first choice CB partnership which rotates between Stones/Dias/Akanji/Ake....etc. How does one mix and match their defense so much and yet be so good?

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I don't think there is a single greatest manager.

Agreed.

There are too many factors involved.

Like I've said before, even more than the case is for individual players (and even that is hardly clear cut).

 

[Diego_Milito]

Local fans in rating their own nations managers shocker

SAF won 2 Champions Leagues, some domestic cups and established a legacy.
All he did was, basically, something that a lot of other managers did. Often times those other managers did it to a better extent, and often times they even went on to win with other teams (maybe in multiple leagues), or with national teams.

The point of the prior posts was that in no other league, in no other fanbase, did a manager benefit from an echo chamber as big as that around which SAF's praise is built.

You'd almost be excused for believing that, if SAF had done what Ancelotti did with multiple teams in the UCL and in different leagues, some fans might have demanded the UK politicians to name an entire neighborhood in Manchester after him, or petitioned to name a planet after him.

The point isn't that SAF is rated by their own nation like it happens with other managers in their respective nations.
But rather, that no other manager in history has ever benefitted from the same ad-nauseam parroting of "greatest manager in history" statements to the extent that SAF has.
Even when they do better.

Main differences are the league titles why Fergie is higher than Lippi. Fergie won 13 leagues in England, and 2 in Scotland. Lippi won 6 league titles, less than half what Fergie won. Fergie won

In Europe, SAF was more successful with both having 4 finals, but Fergie won 2, while Lippi only 1. SAF also won the Europa League equivalent with Aberdeen, and the winners Cup with United.

Of course, Lippi has the World Cup but I do not see how one World Cup compensates for having 9 fewer national titles, 1 fewer UCL, 8 fewer national cups.

I do not think SAF vs Lippi is particularly close. I actually think that Don Carlo is ahead of Lippi in all time rankings.

How many managers have managed to simultaneously dominate in their league, in the UCL, and won the WC? I would say that Lippi's feat is less replicable than SAF's.
You have managers that win the WC, but don't perform so well with clubs, while some others dominate in the league and in the CL, but didn't win the WC or failed at it.
When you can simultaneously dominate the WC, national league, and UCL, you are presenting a case rare enough (how many other managers did it? This is not a rethorical question by the way, I am actually asking) that the manager performing it must be in the best ever managers list.

I will conceed that your view is just as valid and it depends on how important/vital we rate the WC to be.

To conclude, my goal isn't to bash on SAF. As i mentioned two posts ago, he is one of the best ever managers.
Just, I am pointing out how exaggerated the whole echo-chamber around him is.

I hear EPL fans mention SAF more than three times than I hear italian Serie A fans mention Mancini, Lippi, Ancelotti altogether.

 

[Revan]

I am Italian and confirm what you said. SAF is held in high regard, among the best, but it is extremely rare to hear anyone call him the best ever.
Marcello Lippi is the best Italian manager of all time, dominating in the UCL for years while simultaneously winning the World Cup for Italy.
In the process, he reached 4 UCL finals (three in a row!), won one (his only stain) and also managed to knock out Man United (and SAF).
When United beat Juventus in 1998/1999, Lippi had already left Juventus, and Ancelotti was in fact the one SAF knocked out.

So yes, what you say is absolutely true. Why should we rate SAF as better than, say, Lippi?
Personally, I think an argument about SAF being the best ever could be made, but he has in no way a better case than Lippi.

Main differences are the league titles why Fergie is higher than Lippi. Fergie won 13 leagues in England, and 2 in Scotland. Lippi won 6 league titles, less than half what Fergie won. Fergie won 9 national cups, Lippi won 1.

In Europe, SAF was more successful with both having 4 finals, but Fergie won 2, while Lippi only 1. SAF also won the Europa League equivalent with Aberdeen, and the winners Cup with United.

Of course, Lippi has the World Cup but I do not see how one World Cup compensates for having 9 fewer national titles, 1 fewer UCL, 8 fewer national cups.

I do not think SAF vs Lippi is particularly close. I actually think that Don Carlo is ahead of Lippi in all time rankings. Basically, he has the same number of league titles, but 3 (will probably be 4) more UCLs. He is also the only manager to have won all five top leagues (the second closest has just 3). Carlo is the best knock out manager of all time, and the only reason why I have him below SAF and Pep is his relatively speaking, underwhelming national league record.

 

[heraklion]

However, I don't there's anything he could do to have the same legacy as Sir Alex. He has managed the biggest clubs in the world with unlimited squad-building resources (in the case of Barca there was no assembly required), and built his early career on the back of the greatest footballer the world has ever seen.

Until Pep takes an undersized club to European success or brings a legacy club back from the brink of obscurity, we're comparing apples to oranges.

Pep has managed the biggest clubs from the start because he is a genius. This is not a cons for him, rather, it shows his greatness.

If SAF received an offer from the best teams in the English League at the start, he'd go there, but unlike Pep, he didn't. He had to prove himself to get a job at an underperforming United 12 years after the start of his managerial career. You cannot use this as an argument against Pep as somebody else can say what took SAF so long to receive attention.

In a span of 5 years after his start, Pep has been at the helm of Barca and Bayern, two of greatest clubs of all time, this alone is extremely impressive. And after all these years, if he decides to quit today, most top clubs will line up to sign him tomorrow including his old teams.

in the case of Barca there was no assembly required

This is all wrong.

Guardiola got rid of Ronaldinho, the biggest star at Barca, and Deco, a both brave and risky decision. Selling Ronaldinho at that time was seen a crazy decision. He brought in Pique from United, Dani Alves from Sevilla and Keita. Busquets was promoted to the first team when he was on his way for a loan & played him over Yaya Toure after the 1st season, and Xavi & Iniesta were deployed more together.

He made Messi a false 9 when he was already doing great on the right side. His influence was so important to the extent Messi said "We had a great time when Pep was here. That was when I grew most as a footballer."

His effect at Barca was revolutionary in terms of both structural decisions and outcomes. He did all that as a rookie manager.

www.goal.com/en/news/how-guardiola-turned-barcelona-and-messi-into-the-best-in/blt7bf6729a7e96959a

 

[Chesterlestreet]

SAF also won the Europa League equivalent with Aberdeen, and the winners Cup with United.

Which were relatively speaking much bigger achievements at the time than winning the Europa League nowadays.

SAF's Aberdeen beat Real Madrid in the final (1983).

SAF's United beat Barcelona (Cruyff's "Dream Team") in the final (1991).

Just pointing this out.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

One of the good things of this site is the different fans interacting.

One of the downsides is the blinkered fanboys… like Twitter some times.

 

[Revan]

Which were relatively speaking much bigger achievements at the time than winning the Europa League nowadays.

SAF's Aberdeen beat Real Madrid in the final (1983).

SAF's United beat Barcelona (Cruyff's "Dream Team") in the final (1991).

Just pointing this out.

Yes, I admit that saying the equivalent of Europa league does not do justice to those achievements.

 

[Kwabs]

Exactly, everybody respects SAF and sees him as one of the best, but ignoring other top leagues such as Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, their history and realities when making a case for the best ever is just too naive.

Why confine it to Europe or just the last 30/40 years also? I know European football is much stronger than South American domestic football now, but that wasn't always the case. Do we think Brazilians and Argentines uniformly think that SAF is the greatest manager of all time? Of course not.

There is no GOAT really. Too many variables, even more so than in the GOAT player discussion. Far better to discuss the greatest Premier League manager, which is really what this thread is about, it seems.

 

[marktan]

Nah. He needs to go to a team like United and build them into a title winner. All the true greats have done this - SAF, Klopp.

At Barca he had one of the best teams ever. At Bayern they won the treble the year before he went there. At City he already had players like De Bruyne, Sterling, Kompany, David Silva, Fernandinho, and then spent something like double what Klopp spent.

Great manager but the greatest? No. He needs to go to a club like Chelsea or United and make them great. Having a great team and then being able to heavily outspend rivals isn't really impressive (and yes spending a lot can go wrong, as with United, we know, but Woodward and the Glazer's are idiots and City did have a much better team than us in 2016).

 

[DRJosh]

While Pep is managing a team of superstars and has access to unlimited resources, his obsession with granular tactical detail and playing styles, and sophisticated understanding of player roles in a squad is clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the pack.

to put it in another way, I don’t think any manager can achieve what Pep has even if they were managing City and had the luxury of buying anyone they wanted.there is a common misconception that anyone could do what Pep has done if they have what he has at his disposal

 

[Revan]

While Pep is managing a team of superstars and has access to unlimited resources, his obsession with granular tactical detail and playing styles, and sophisticated understanding of player roles in a squad is clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the pack.

to put it in another way, I don’t think any manager can achieve what Pep has even if they were managing City and had the luxury of buying anyone they wanted.there is a common misconception that anyone could do what Pep has done if they have what he has at his disposal

Very hard to disagree with this. One then with Pep has always been that to defeat him, you usually have to go for a defensive counter attacking style, essentially change your game to have a chance of winning. Even when he loses (in UCL), almost always his team was the better one. With that big exception in 2014 when Ancelotti schooled him and won 5-0 (which is probably Pep’s only heavy defeat).

 

[Hammondo]

Nah. He needs to go to a team like United and build them into a title winner. All the true greats have done this - SAF, Klopp.

At Barca he had one of the best teams ever. At Bayern they won the treble the year before he went there. At City he already had players like De Bruyne, Sterling, Kompany, David Silva, Fernandinho, and then spent something like double what Klopp spent.

Great manager but the greatest? No. He needs to go to a club like Chelsea or United and make them great. Having a great team and then being able to heavily outspend rivals isn't really impressive (and yes spending a lot can go wrong, as with United, we know, but Woodward and the Glazer's are idiots and City did have a much better team than us in 2016).

Well pep took over a struggling Barcelona when he got there, and you talk as if going to a weaker team is that important.

Why does Pep need to care about managing a weaker team up, when he's the best at managing top teams. It's not like SAF or Klopp were managing small or poor clubs, both were/are very rich.

 

[Hammondo]

While Pep is managing a team of superstars and has access to unlimited resources, his obsession with granular tactical detail and playing styles, and sophisticated understanding of player roles in a squad is clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the pack.

to put it in another way, I don’t think any manager can achieve what Pep has even if they were managing City and had the luxury of buying anyone they wanted.there is a common misconception that anyone could do what Pep has done if they have what he has at his disposal

Same can we said for RM as well, but I don't think any of their managers have had the impact Pep has.

I think currently the only real criticism he has, outside the City charges, is that he should have won more CLs. I expect he wants to improve that record.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Well pep took over a struggling Barcelona when he got there, and you talk as if going to a weaker team is that important.

Why does Pep need to care about managing a weaker team up, when he's the best at managing top teams. It's not like SAF or Klopp were managing small or poor clubs, both were/are very rich.

They got to the semi finals of the Champions League, losing by one wonder goal to the winners (us).

Ferguson went to St Mirren (Div 2) in 74 who were tiny club then and in three years, took them up a league then champions of Div 1 with one of the youngest teams ever in Scotland. Went to Aberdeen in 78, won four leagues (Celtic or Rangers had won the last fourteen), several cups and a European final v Madrid with an entirely Scottish team, again some young talents brought through.

 

[marktan]

Well pep took over a struggling Barcelona when he got there, and you talk as if going to a weaker team is that important.

Why does Pep need to care about managing a weaker team up, when he's the best at managing top teams. It's not like SAF or Klopp were managing small or poor clubs, both were/are very rich.

They reached the CL semi final the season before? And only went out to a Scholesy wonder goal. This was their squad: Valdes, Zambrotta, Puyol, Milito, Abidal, Toure Yaya (Gudjohnsen 88), Messi, Xavi, Deco, Iniesta (Henry 60), Eto'o (Bojan 72).

The point is SAF went to Aberdeen and a poor United, and turned them into great teams. Klopp went to a Liverpool team with a terrible squad and made them great, despite competing at a significant financial disadvantage to City. I'm not denying Pep is great at managing top teams, but SAF and Klopp would achieve just as much if they had those squads and then the level of investment City has had.

Take for example Zidane. Is he a great coach for winning 3 CLS in a row? He's likely very good.. but it's also true that he was massively helped by having one of the best squads in modern football. Would he have done the same managing United in 2016? No.

While Pep is managing a team of superstars and has access to unlimited resources, his obsession with granular tactical detail and playing styles, and sophisticated understanding of player roles in a squad is clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the pack.

to put it in another way, I don’t think any manager can achieve what Pep has even if they were managing City and had the luxury of buying anyone they wanted.there is a common misconception that anyone could do what Pep has done if they have what he has at his disposal

Whilst it's true that Pep is the best at that style of football (controlling possession, strangling teams), I don't think you can realistically argue that someone like Klopp or SAF wouldn't have had similar success if they had been at City. I think Klopp in particular would have done it rather easily. Since they both took over, he had a significantly worse first squad, and spent something like half the net spend of City, and he still managed to win a league, a CL, and finish a point behind twice. And the primary reason for those two 2nd place finishes was squad depth - City rotated the front 3 between the PL and the midweek CL games almost always, whereas Klopp almost always played the same front 3 of Mane/Firmino/Salah and Mane/Jota/Salah (in the other season) in the weekend and midweek games. Switch the financial resources of the two around and thus the squad depth and I'm almost 100% certain City finish behind Liverpool more often than not.

 

[ForFuchsSake]

teams weren’t allowed in Europe when Ferguson took over

Nah. He needs to go to a team like United and build them into a title winner. All the true greats have done this - SAF, Klopp.

At Barca he had one of the best teams ever. At Bayern they won the treble the year before he went there. At City he already had players like De Bruyne, Sterling, Kompany, David Silva, Fernandinho, and then spent something like double what Klopp spent.

Great manager but the greatest? No. He needs to go to a club like Chelsea or United and make them great. Having a great team and then being able to heavily outspend rivals isn't really impressive (and yes spending a lot can go wrong, as with United, we know, but Woodward and the Glazer's are idiots and City did have a much better team than us in 2016).

Always find this argument so strange. Why should Pep go and prove himself at a lesser club when he’s proven he’s undoubtably the best manager at the pinnacle of the game currently? He wants continued success so will want the best possible platform to achieve that - sadly, that is currently City.

If you’re the best in your field, then you should be at the top and you don’t have to lower yourself to prove yourself. We wouldn’t expect that in any other field.

The reality is, Pep has elevated clubs and sustained great success, mostly building on the success of his predecessor. The Barcelona team he inherited weren’t anywhere near the dominant force they eventually became - not to mention that money was practically a non-factor as the core of the side (Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets) developed together. It’s complete conjecture to presume they would have simply reached their individual and collective levels without Pep. He does rightly deserve huge credit for that success.

In terms of City, yes they spend a fortune but so do so many PL clubs - it’s about whether they spend it well and most of City’s signings generally hit. That’s more testament to the club’s recruitment but still. I find the money argument strange because so many PL clubs can just go and blow a small fortune now - look at United and Chelsea spending money terribly in recent years. Arsenal and Liverpool fans love to act like they are paupers but can easily make £80m, £90m, £100m signings if they want to. The reality is, City would not have accrued the level of success they have without Pep and they won’t once he leaves (thank feck).

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Klopp is not in the conversation for best manager. At all.

 

[Hammondo]

They got to the semi finals of the Champions League, losing by one wonder goal to the winners (us).

Ferguson went to St Mirren (Div 2) in 74 who were tiny club then and in three years, took them up a league then champions of Div 1 with one of the youngest teams ever in Scotland. Went to Aberdeen in 78, won four leagues (Celtic or Rangers had won the last fourteen), several cups and a European final v Madrid with an entirely Scottish team, again some young talents brought through.

Barcelona avoided all good teams in that cl. They had a really easy run.

Yes I know what SAF did, it was amazing. Wasn't as good with a top team as Pep has been though.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

SAF is the best manager in English football because he best exemplifies qualities that are highly valued in English football culture.

However, these qualities are not valued as much in continental European football. Therefore people who follow other leagues disagree that Guardiola and other continental managers need to live up to the standards of English football managers.

 

[Josep Dowling]

Who would have thought a forum for United fans would have a bias for Sir Alex Ferguson?

As for Pep if you look at the trophy cabinet, the records, how he’s influenced modern football with his style of football, he will be up there as the managerial GOAT.

However there are so many scandals that follow his career which if true have given his sides an unfair advantage. At his time at Barcelona they were paying referees and there was the doping case where Barcelona and Spanish players blood was part of the case, only for the blood samples to be destroyed. Bayern the long serving doctor left after Pep complained that players were taking too long to recover and sending player to Spain for treatment. And now at City he had unlimited funds and a squad assembled for him before he arrived. He’s defended due to ‘net spend’ over the last 4 years forgetting the fact they have used the youth system as a cash cow like no other club, their spiderweb of clubs around Europe, fake sponsorships. Its allowed City to assemble a strong squad faster than any of team in Europe. Who spends £90m on a full back? Remember when he spent £200m on full backs and a goalkeeper when that was unheard of. Haaland is paid 75% more than any other non-City player in the league and it’s reported they spent just £60m on him. Plus the fact Pep was caught doing PED as a player.

Some of these points will never be proved but too much of this stuff follows him around.

 

[Red the Bear]

He beat him twice on their way to Champions league triumph with Dortmund .

People give credit to pep for dominating Madrid while still losing to them, the same pretty much applies here if you use the same criteria.

I am Italian and confirm what you said. SAF is held in high regard, among the best, but it is extremely rare to hear anyone call him the best ever.
Marcello Lippi is the best Italian manager of all time, dominating in the UCL for years while simultaneously winning the World Cup for Italy.
In the process, he reached 4 UCL finals (three in a row!), won one (his only stain) and also managed to knock out Man United (and SAF).
When United beat Juventus in 1998/1999, Lippi had already left Juventus, and Ancelotti was in fact the one SAF knocked out.

So yes, what you say is absolutely true. Why should we rate SAF as better than, say, Lippi?
Personally, I think an argument about SAF being the best ever could be made, but he has in no way a better case than Lippi.

Lippi had a 3-0-3 record against Sir Alex pretty even one could say.

 

[Fortitude]

While Pep is managing a team of superstars and has access to unlimited resources, his obsession with granular tactical detail and playing styles, and sophisticated understanding of player roles in a squad is clearly leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the pack.

to put it in another way, I don’t think any manager can achieve what Pep has even if they were managing City and had the luxury of buying anyone they wanted.there is a common misconception that anyone could do what Pep has done if they have what he has at his disposal

They wouldn't need to do what Pep has done as they were legendary at what they did and would have taken that to the Nth degree instead.

There's a severe underestimation in the vulnerabilities of an actual, organic squad. Remove them, as Pep has had the luxury of, and the outlook is monumentally different. Give Klopp a whole squad of heavy metal footballers; give Ferguson no dip from starter to subs; give Mourinho a squad of drones; give Wenger a whole collection in his desired image. The landscape is turned upside down; each one of them would be even more formidable than they were at their peaks because there is then absolutely nothing preventing the dips normal squads encounter.

 

[Fobal]

Diego_Milito is right, Fergie it's not regarded as untocheable as it's regarded in England or mostly by United fans. And this has nothing to do with me making a pun comment on him, or any sort of demerit regarding his legacy.
And this doesn't happen only in Italy, it's worldwide.
Like it was said it has to do with every country praising their own coaches + in Great Britain I think that their traditional Insular and Home of the game xtras has their influence in Fergie's almost divine status.

 

[marktan]

Always find this argument so strange. Why should Pep go and prove himself at a lesser club when he’s proven he’s undoubtably the best manager at the pinnacle of the game currently? He wants continued success so will want the best possible platform to achieve that - sadly, that is currently City.

If you’re the best in your field, then you should be at the top and you don’t have to lower yourself to prove yourself. We wouldn’t expect that in any other field.

The reality is, Pep has elevated clubs and sustained great success, mostly building on the success of his predecessor. The Barcelona team he inherited weren’t anywhere near the dominant force they eventually became - not to mention that money was practically a non-factor as the core of the side (Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets) developed together. It’s complete conjecture to presume they would have simply reached their individual and collective levels without Pep. He does rightly deserve huge credit for that success.

In terms of City, yes they spend a fortune but so do so many PL clubs - it’s about whether they spend it well and most of City’s signings generally hit. That’s more testament to the club’s recruitment but still. I find the money argument strange because so many PL clubs can just go and blow a small fortune now - look at United and Chelsea spending money terribly in recent years. Arsenal and Liverpool fans love to act like they are paupers but can easily make £80m, £90m, £100m signings if they want to. The reality is, City would not have accrued the level of success they have without Pep and they won’t once he leaves (thank feck).

The argument is simply great squads (Barca and Bayern, and half of City's initial squad) and outspending rivals = a higher guarantee of success. See Zidane at Madrid winning 3 CLs. Could he take a poor squad with less money and build them into a great team the way Klopp did? We don't know.

United and Chelsea are run terribly yes, that's a given. The argument is their direct competition in the last 5 or 6 years - Liverpool. They had half the net spend of City since Pep took over. That's like an extra 6 or 7 £50m signings, and that level of squad depth makes a massive difference in busy seasons. City could afford to rotate their front 3. Liverpool could not. City do sign well but equally they can sign players like Kalvin Phillips, Nunes for £50M a pop and forget they even exist. Grealish for £100m not looking great? No problem, they already have 7 other attackers.

 

[Hammondo]

They reached the CL semi final the season before? And only went out to a Scholesy wonder goal. This was their squad: Valdes, Zambrotta, Puyol, Milito, Abidal, Toure Yaya (Gudjohnsen 88), Messi, Xavi, Deco, Iniesta (Henry 60), Eto'o (Bojan 72).

The point is SAF went to Aberdeen and a poor United, and turned them into great teams. Klopp went to a Liverpool team with a terrible squad and made them great, despite competing at a significant financial disadvantage to City. I'm not denying Pep is great at managing top teams, but SAF and Klopp would achieve just as much if they had those squads and then the level of investment City has had.

Take for example Zidane. Is he a great coach for winning 3 CLS in a row? He's likely very good.. but it's also true that he was massively helped by having one of the best squads in modern football. Would he have done the same managing United in 2016? No.



Whilst it's true that Pep is the best at that style of football (controlling possession, strangling teams), I don't think you can realistically argue that someone like Klopp or SAF wouldn't have had similar success if they had been at City. I think Klopp in particular would have done it rather easily. Since they both took over, he had a significantly worse first squad, and spent something like half the net spend of City, and he still managed to win a league, a CL, and finish a point behind twice. And the primary reason for those two 2nd place finishes was squad depth - City rotated the front 3 between the PL and the midweek CL games almost always, whereas Klopp almost always played the same front 3 of Mane/Firmino/Salah and Mane/Jota/Salah (in the other season) in the weekend and midweek games. Switch the financial resources of the two around and thus the squad depth and I'm almost 100% certain City finish behind Liverpool more often than not.

Yes they reached the semi final, playing against no strong teams.

SAF did amazing in Scotland, no doubt. Klopp took over a weak squad of a huge club, won a few trophies, nothing amazing considering he spent nearly as much as city and struggled to be competitive for half of it.

Zidane didn't have competition though, was a weak period in football.

SAF has things on his side as well, best youth generation in PL history of any club, bar far. United were a huge club only RM was bigger. We had our pick of English players, more so than any other English club.

 

[Halftrack]

Pep's spent half his career cheating at City, and while he was at Barca they were paying off refs and probably doping.

In a just world his reputation will be left in tatters, the cheating prick.