He probably didn't leave because he will never get the control he had at Man Utd anywhereSAF did get offers from the biggest clubs in the world when he succeeded at United. I don't think there were many boards back then that wouldnt trust him. He did say he was tempted at times, but in line with being the spiritual successor to Busby I think he became completely synonymous with United. He'd never leave. Its hypothetical what his succes would. Fergie was regularly equated with being the best manager in the world and still tops mosts lists for the greatest manager ever. Its not just an English bias. I don't think its heresy to say he's not the greatest ever i just believe he is.
Let's not forget - he also still remains the last manager to beat Real Madrid in a European final. Aberdeen (1983).Obviously fergie didn't end up hopping top clubs and leaving when things had run it's course but perhaps he could have been good at that too, after all he did get united second in his first full season here before realising he had to change things wholesale.
It was an undoubtedly great achievement. But it's worth mentioning that 83 RM side was one of their weakest of the past 40 years and not at the level that people tend to associate with RM. They didn't really have any superstars (Stielike was their best player or maybe Camacho), hadn't won La Liga in a few years, lost every cup final they were in that year, and it was before they got Sanchez.Let's not forget - he also still remains the last manager to beat Real Madrid in a European final. Aberdeen (1983).
He's undoubtedly one of the best managers ever. I think the broader argument is about the criteria that makes a manager one of the best.Fergie was regularly equated with being the best manager in the world and still tops mosts lists for the greatest manager ever. Its not just an English bias. I don't think its heresy to say he's not the greatest ever i just believe he is.
And that’s why I’ll never call him the greatest, although just my opinion of course. What he’s essentially done is remove flair, excitement, jeopardy, fluidity and flexibility to create, in essence, a “super structured tactic” to attain complete efficiency in matches. It’s like those people who play Fm with game breaking tactics.Resources matter, but some of the reduction in vulnerability is still down to Pep's approach as well. His style, particularly in league campaigns, is one that tries to eliminate jeopardy as much as possible through retaining possession and choking opposition. It's seems more sustainable and less taxing than something like Klopp's style over the long run over a season and from year to year. Also in terms of squad composition he is intentional about recruiting or coaching up versatile players that can capably deputize is multiple roles or positions (except Rodri's), making the team overall less vulnerable to shocks from key injuries. In this current squad, you only really have Kyle Walker and Haaland who can only do one role effectively. The rest can do the mixing and matching. Even Ederson can play striker (jk). That is down to their quality and adaptability as players, but also the coaching. Pep intentionally keeps the squad on the smaller side in order to better manage it. Other squads are usually bigger in terms of sheer number, not quality.
Yeah, your sentiments remind me of another post I had (below) comparing his current iteration of City to Amazon. Just ruthless, conquering efficiency eliminating as much variability and spontaneity as possible. Also similar to a very technical pianist or singer that hits all of the right notes with precision but "something" is missing from the performance. I suppose the criteria for greatness here would be similar to much of the reason Maradona is held is such high regard: You have to make the people feel something.And that’s why I’ll never call him the greatest, although just my opinion of course. What he’s essentially done is remove flair, excitement, jeopardy, fluidity and flexibility to create, in essence, a “super structured tactic” to attain complete efficiency in matches. It’s like those people who play Fm with game breaking tactics.
When I think about football, growing up, playing and watching the game and the enjoyment I got from that. The whole current Pep Guardiola ethos is completely in contrast to that. I cannot stand watching them play against any of the non big teams (where at least the opponent having world class players means city can’t just have their way with them). Because it’s just so comically one sided.
I was watching a clip of True Geordie last weekend and he said he got much more excited hating and relished failure for the old successful United, because they gave you a chance, they took that risk with the attacking football whereas this city just don’t give you that and he said he simply couldn’t get himself to even give a shit about their success.
And i don’t think that makes them better.
In the same way Floyd Mayweather isn’t better than say Mike Tyson in many peoples eyes.
He’s not always been like this to be fair, his Barcelona teams and his city team of 2017-2019 had a lot more personality and flair on the pitch about them. This current crop, bar Foden are the most boring group of successful football players I’ve ever seen. From their 4 CB’s sitting on the halfway line, to their constant recycling of the ball and the incessant cut backs etc it’s all just fecking meh. All their players are personality vacuums like a bunch of robots on a football pitch doing the same thing over and over again.
You watch a team like Real Madrid and see the likes of Vini, Bellingham, Rodrygo and honestly it’s far more pleasing to watch than anything city do. Liverpool under Klopp were a far better watch.
Other thing that annoys me is you’ve got people like Carragher constantly blabbering on about city’s points total with no thought as to why that might be. Bigger squads, bigger team sheets and more subs. Yet cos they get 2-3 more wins than the great Pl winning sides of the past that automatically makes them better apparently.
Anyway, many will disagree I’m sure but the more coaches who try and emulate Pep and this current style of his the more robotic and overly tactical football will become.
The fact that 6 weeks into the season their generational midfield talisman is a forgotten man has got me thinking about this thread again. KdB's absence barely even registers.
Ironically, they might be helped by a long period of struggling and losing after Pep leaves. That would probably invite some jeopardy, fragility and colorful characters. So many of the things that they have done to construct this winning machine are the same reasons why so many feel this way about them. As much a people claim it, the winning cannot be ignored, but something still somehow feels off. City are like a hyper efficient, ruthless capitalist beast optimized to reduce all risk and unpredictability and tailored to win at all costs. Even at the cost of those things that would leave you with some "feeling". It feels like Amazon in the corporate world. This ethos has manifested is so many elements of the club:
Money: I don't think much needs to be said here. City spend a lot to win a lot.
Style of play: This has already been covered a lot as well. Dominance of the ball, primacy of control, other teams defending deep. It's a style that tries to reduce jeopardy to the maximum extent, often sucking the life out of games and, again, making the outcomes very predictable.
Squad Management and Versatility of players: It's obviously very helpful to have versatile players. At time's City's squad depth appears greater than it is because they have a lot of versatile players that can cover many positions without too much overall loss to the system. The flip side of this though is that no one feels essential. They are just cogs. It's harder to develop attachments when you know you won't really miss a player all that much.
Academy Factory: Again, being optimized for financialization, City is now heavily relying on their academy primarily as a tool to balance the books. You get some type of feeling or attachment when you see a boy grow into a man and integrate into the first team. Feels like you were part of the journey. But with a ruthless, optimized winning machine, this element can get lost, even if it is the smart thing to do financially. I fear for Rico Lewis' future.
Temperament of Players: Where are the players you can hate? The players that stir emotion or cause controversy? I think City is intentional in the profile of character of player they recruit. I know Zlatan has a strong hate for Pep, but some of what he says rings true. They are mostly "good boys" with even temperaments that will follow instructions. The occasional jerk like Joao Cancelo is quickly moved along when he starts to create waves. Gvardiol, Kovacic, Nunes, Doku...where are the jerks?!?
Media Presence: Pep learned from his early tangles with Mourinho and now is reluctant to get drawn into long media battles. He often gives the most anodyne answers and avoids controversy, even damning opponents with faint praise. He can be snarky and condescending, but it can be subtle and harder to pick up on. As a result, the "rivalries" are less spicy.
All of this can combine to create a devastatingly effective and consistent winning machine, but jeopardy, unpredictability and color of characters are what evoke the strongest emotions and engender the strongest attachments. Everyone can recognize Amazon for the corporate juggernaut that it is and will maybe even order a thing or two, but no one will be telling their kids of those glorious, memorable days scrolling down the screen gobbling up those Prime Day specials.
Maybe they are betting on winning so much that none of this will matter in the wash of history when the younger fans grow older.
Great post. Pep is a fantastic coach and city are an incredibly effective team but they're also an extremely dull watch.And that’s why I’ll never call him the greatest, although just my opinion of course. What he’s essentially done is remove flair, excitement, jeopardy, fluidity and flexibility to create, in essence, a “super structured tactic” to attain complete efficiency in matches. It’s like those people who play Fm with game breaking tactics.
When I think about football, growing up, playing and watching the game and the enjoyment I got from that. The whole current Pep Guardiola ethos is completely in contrast to that. I cannot stand watching them play against any of the non big teams (where at least the opponent having world class players means city can’t just have their way with them). Because it’s just so comically one sided.
I was watching a clip of True Geordie last weekend and he said he got much more excited hating and relished failure for the old successful United, because they gave you a chance, they took that risk with the attacking football whereas this city just don’t give you that and he said he simply couldn’t get himself to even give a shit about their success.
And i don’t think that makes them better.
In the same way Floyd Mayweather isn’t better than say Mike Tyson in many peoples eyes.
He’s not always been like this to be fair, his Barcelona teams and his city team of 2017-2019 had a lot more personality and flair on the pitch about them. This current crop, bar Foden are the most boring group of successful football players I’ve ever seen. From their 4 CB’s sitting on the halfway line, to their constant recycling of the ball and the incessant cut backs etc it’s all just fecking meh. All their players are personality vacuums like a bunch of robots on a football pitch doing the same thing over and over again.
You watch a team like Real Madrid and see the likes of Vini, Bellingham, Rodrygo and honestly it’s far more pleasing to watch than anything city do. Liverpool under Klopp were a far better watch.
Other thing that annoys me is you’ve got people like Carragher constantly blabbering on about city’s points total with no thought as to why that might be. Bigger squads, bigger team sheets and more subs. Yet cos they get 2-3 more wins than the great Pl winning sides of the past that automatically makes them better apparently.
Anyway, many will disagree I’m sure but the more coaches who try and emulate Pep and this current style of his the more robotic and overly tactical football will become.
Agree with this.In terms of British football it's hard to imagine he'll get near Fergie.
In terms of European/world football he's got a big argument, you don't three peat three major leagues if you're not a serious manager no matter what advantages you may have.
I don't think there is a single manager in world football in the last 30 years who you can say "could win stuff with Luton."Give him Luton could he win stuff with them??
Im sure if an Arabic Shiekh bought Luton and gave him unlimited transfer money like he basically has had at City he would manage to win something.I don't think there is a single manager in world football in the last 30 years who you can say "could win stuff with Luton."
fact we’ll give him spurs then or is Luton more realisticI don't think there is a single manager in world football in the last 30 years who you can say "could win stuff with Luton."
The same posters who want Pep to go win at Luton will not acknowledge any of these managers above as the GOAT despite meeting their criteriaThe only managers from non-"big" clubs who've won anything in England this century are Claudio Ranieri, Brendan Rodgers, Roberto Martinez, Martin Laudrup, Graeme Souness, Steve McClaren, Martin O'Neill, and Harry Redknapp. That would suggest that winning with small clubs isn't worth much since none of those managers are anywhere near great.
There isn't a but here; resources determine literally everything. Before a ball is even kicked going into a new campaign, resources will determine how you approach the transfer window and preseason and what level you can stress a squad to in preparation. The more resources, the greater the landscape is altered, especially in terms of risk and jeopardy.Resources matter, but
We're talking about these other managers extrapolated at their best. In every case, those teams overseen by these other coaches could take their foot off the pedal because of the dominance they exerted. It manifested in different ways for different coaches, but it was clear when they were at the top of their game. We would play kids and the subs rather than try and rack up absurd goal or points tallies; Mourinho would just shut up shop and iron bolt games; 1 or 2 nil up and most games were pretty much over. Wenger's lot started trying to score the greatest team goals mankind had ever witnessed. You give anyone of them unheralded resources and what they always were is extrapolated, just like it is for Pep.some of the reduction in vulnerability is still down to Pep's approach as well. His style, particularly in league campaigns, is one that tries to eliminate jeopardy as much as possible through retaining possession and choking opposition. It's seems more sustainable and less taxing than something like Klopp's style over the long run over a season and from year to year.
However any of them composed a squad is up to them. The means and personnel to do so is what's important. Optimisation is the crux and with the greatest of resources comes the greatest chance to create something bespoke and perfect for how you wish to do things. It cannot be understated how cushy an advantageous that is over a league campaign. We often display Fergie's squads because it needs to be highlighted to show the discrepancy and brilliance of the manger that he could do what he did with what he had at his disposal; for the major body of his managerial career, his squad players would not be starters at the top clubs, and the moment we did have that, points tallies, unsurprisingly, went up despite the fundamental principles being adhered to in the same way.Also in terms of squad composition he is intentional about recruiting or coaching up versatile players that can capably deputize is multiple roles or positions (except Rodri's), making the team overall less vulnerable to shocks from key injuries. In this current squad, you only really have Kyle Walker and Haaland who can only do one role effectively. The rest can do the mixing and matching. Even Ederson can play striker (jk). That is down to their quality and adaptability as players, but also the coaching. Pep intentionally keeps the squad on the smaller side in order to better manage it. Other squads are usually bigger in terms of sheer number, not quality.
As above, I just don't see this as a factor for any one of the managers. With endless resources, squad composition can be so custom-built and perfect that harmonising isn't going to be difficult, and what's more, those same resources ensure you can throw away anything you like and simply bring in the next one, no bother whatsoever. It doesn't take much of that to strike gold. The equivalence in real world for Pep would be: what happens if he's lumped with those FB's and CB's he cycled through and had to use them, faults and flaws all? Is he still playing the same brand of football or not? The guy gets to tweak and tweak and tweak until things are how he wants them. Not even Mourinho could do that under Abramovich. It's something beholden only to Pep and he's comedic resources.You would also need to factor in other aspects of management like man management and squad composition. It's not a given that Klopp's lovey-dovey, against-the-odds, loyal-to-a-fault, we-are-family style would work just as effectively if you throw even more egos of starter-level players into the mix. You already see cracks with Nunez and Salah this year now that Klopp is leaving. I think SAF and Klopp have excellent gravitas, so they could likely pull it off, but it's not a given. With Klopp, I have often wondered if it's a chicken or egg problem with the injuries. For a while, I thought Liverpool were working within financial constraints and chancing it by taking punts on cheaper players with spotty injury records in the hopes that they could turn in around at Liverpool and represent value transfers (Thiago, Konate, Ox). But then you have guys like Matip, Keita etc, that make me wonder if there is something about Klopp's approach that makes players more susceptible to injury, thereby increasing the vulnerability of the squad. And this is only the physical side of it. The constant emotionalism and last-minute comebacks have to be pretty mentally draining as well.
This is relative, and relatively, he was up against Barcelona. He amassed crazy points totals and actually did very well with what he had, just that he was thwarted by the team most put up against 89-93 AC Milan as the literal best club side of all time. Pep has had no such opposition in England.Mourinho has had amazing squads and yet he always burns out everywhere. Man-for-man, I would have Mourinho's Real Madrid squads over this City squad. City have a great squad, but a lot of the names are also just kinda "meh" relative to the hype the squad gets. Discussions of these otherworldly, "two first eleven" City squads used to include guys like Sterling, Jesus and Zinchenko and now they are all pretty much afterthoughts at their new clubs even though they are still prime age.
Yeah, that's exactly the reason why Van Gaal, Mourinho, ETH, and others did not live up to expectations at United, lack of resources..There isn't a but here; resources determine literally everything.
Yet funnily enough Pep has had a greater defensive record than Mourinho everywhere he has coached.I think what is forgotten is that Pep does not have the blueprint on success and his unprecedented points totals do not signify what people believe they do because they have only become a thing in his time because he's made it so where other managers focused on what was important to them: SAF - rounding out his players and giving his squad as much playing time as possible for them all to be sharp and able and also to develop; Mourinho - his ultimate aim would probably have been to set the greatest defensive records known to man and probably also to target GD.
That squad has good/great players and we didn't win the league that season. We won it the following season.
Your attempts to normalise Guardiola are literally a nonsense. Even in this post, which you believe to be a counter. Relative to his resources, his failings in Europe are just as bad.Yeah, that's exactly the reason why Van Gaal, Mourinho, ETH, and others did not live up to expectations at United, lack of resources..
or Ancelotti at Bayern.. or Chelsea's troubles.. or PSG not winning a UCL.. all about lack of resources..
or SAF getting eliminated against Goteborg, Galatasaray, Basel, Benfica, Lille or him losing multiple times in the 2nd round of the UCL etc. it's all about lack of resources..
You know, I know, everybody knows that Pep starts at United tomorrow, United will probably win the PL title in the next two years with the same spending, the title that they have missed past 12 years.
Defence via extreme midfield control and retention is a different ball game to having the actual defence do the heavy lifting, as Spain also displayed during their peak period.Yet funnily enough Pep has had a greater defensive record than Mourinho everywhere he has coached.
Did he not do that?in real world for Pep would be: what happens if he's lumped with those FB's and CB's he cycled through and had to use them, faults and flaws all?
Manuel Pellegrini got a higher point tally in his lone season at Real Madrid than Jose Mourinho did in two of his three seasons there.This is relative, and relatively, he was up against Barcelona. He amassed crazy points totals and actually did very well with what he had, just that he was thwarted by the team most put up against 89-93 AC Milan as the literal best club side of all time. Pep has had no such opposition in England.
If resources determine "literally everything" and Pep's resources are truly unprecedented in history, then does the same magical resource extrapolation wand also extend to other comparatively under-resourced managers who've won things like Simeone, Conte, Van Gaal, Benitez, Tuchel, Allegri, Enrique, Lippi?There isn't a but here; resources determine literally everything. Before a ball is even kicked going into a new campaign, resources will determine how you approach the transfer window and preseason and what level you can stress a squad to in preparation. The more resources, the greater the landscape is altered, especially in terms of risk and jeopardy.
Pep can do things he's hailed for because of his resources. His squads don't have to go all out, high octane from the start of a campaign to the end of one, like those rivalling City since he's been there have to because the load they share gives tremendous advantages in terms of recovery and opportunism. His squads are by far the least likely to flag at any point in a campaign.
We're talking about these other managers extrapolated at their best. In every case, those teams overseen by these other coaches could take their foot off the pedal because of the dominance they exerted. It manifested in different ways for different coaches, but it was clear when they were at the top of their game. We would play kids and the subs rather than try and rack up absurd goal or points tallies; Mourinho would just shut up shop and iron bolt games; 1 or 2 nil up and most games were pretty much over. Wenger's lot started trying to score the greatest team goals mankind had ever witnessed. You give anyone of them unheralded resources and what they always were is extrapolated, just like it is for Pep.
I think what is forgotten is that Pep does not have the blueprint on success and his unprecedented points totals do not signify what people believe they do because they have only become a thing in his time because he's made it so where other managers focused on what was important to them: SAF - rounding out his players and giving his squad as much playing time as possible for them all to be sharp and able and also to develop; Mourinho - his ultimate aim would probably have been to set the greatest defensive records known to man and probably also to target GD.
We became much more points focused because of Mourinho, but still tried to retain SAF's principles wherever possible. Take that squad of competent subs and replace it with a monstrous rotation and things change, significantly.
You've mentioned Klopp and my thinking is, all of a sudden, he has considerably more means to play his high octane football, rotating in players of similar quality who can maintain the output of his starters, just as with Pep, he suddenly can observe the landscape differently and take far more risks with his charges as jeopardy itself and consequence for doing so lessens.
I don't think there's an issue with character when it comes to the kind of money on the table.
However any of them composed a squad is up to them. The means and personnel to do so is what's important. Optimisation is the crux and with the greatest of resources comes the greatest chance to create something bespoke and perfect for how you wish to do things. It cannot be understated how cushy an advantageous that is over a league campaign. We often display Fergie's squads because it needs to be highlighted to show the discrepancy and brilliance of the manger that he could do what he did with what he had at his disposal; for the major body of his managerial career, his squad players would not be starters at the top clubs, and the moment we did have that, points tallies, unsurprisingly, went up despite the fundamental principles being adhered to in the same way.
As above, I just don't see this as a factor for any one of the managers. With endless resources, squad composition can be so custom-built and perfect that harmonising isn't going to be difficult, and what's more, those same resources ensure you can throw away anything you like and simply bring in the next one, no bother whatsoever. It doesn't take much of that to strike gold. The equivalence in real world for Pep would be: what happens if he's lumped with those FB's and CB's he cycled through and had to use them, faults and flaws all? Is he still playing the same brand of football or not? The guy gets to tweak and tweak and tweak until things are how he wants them. Not even Mourinho could do that under Abramovich. It's something beholden only to Pep and he's comedic resources.
This is relative, and relatively, he was up against Barcelona. He amassed crazy points totals and actually did very well with what he had, just that he was thwarted by the team most put up against 89-93 AC Milan as the literal best club side of all time. Pep has had no such opposition in England.
I thought it was clear I was talking about league campaigns. I think my posts in this thread have been clear, and they probably best answer your questions, too:If resources determine "literally everything" and Pep's resources are truly unprecedented in history, then does the same magical resource extrapolation wand also extend to other comparatively under-resourced managers who've won things like Simeone, Conte, Van Gaal, Benitez, Tuchel, Allegri, Enrique, Lippi?
If so, fair enough, but that is inching closer to making a point that managers, for all of the qualities and differences they bring to the table outside of resources, just don't matter very much. Some of Pep's achievements in football are singular, so the broader you extend this group, the stronger that point is made.
If not, then on what basis is the treatment different within the top echelon versus across echelons? And why would those differentiating criteria not apply within the upper echelon as opposed to just across echelons?
There are so many what ifs revolving around Pep because of his unique circumstances that really caveat his placing in an otherwise uniform and organic process. Given his resources, he has massively underperformed, because with the advantages he has always had, league competition becomes a broken formality whilst performance in Europe becomes even more important a barometer than it is for other coaches because it's the only time he faces anything like their adversity.
Other coaches have shown what you can do to a league where you absolutely dominant in terms of squad and resources - Jose did the same with Chelsea and the few times SAF was given a bigger pot to play with, our league performance in terms of both dominance and consistency took on monumental leaps. The league becomes badly bastardised when one team has humongous financial advantage over the others, so winning it becomes less impressive and every single one of the managers mentioned said that the CL became a different kind of proving ground, and it's also no coincidence all are defined by the epic battles against equivalent squads therein.
Sacchi created arguably the best team of al time when he had great resources; SAF got himself to 3 CL finals with what is recognised as our strongest ever side, breaking records along the way; Mourinho was at the helm of a juggernaut at peak squad strength, so it clearly goes hand in hand when über sides enter the fray, and one should question what the timeline looks like for any of these managers with the resources and squads Pep gets handed to him every season. No lulls, no weak areas, no chopping and changing excessively because stars leave or fade (Gullit & Van Basten; Ronaldo & Tevez), just nothing organic or recognised as pitfalls for everyone else.
It also bleeds into ideas and systems: Pep can dream up literally anything he wants in May, and by August, he'll have the majority of the components to implement it, no bother. No other coach can say the same, so for all the genius and innovation; it's not the same when you can press reset at the end of a campaign and load a new game for the next one. There's nothing organically familiar about that, and such artificial settings have to be objectively accounted for.
Pep has no storied road to the top. There's not even an idea if he could do it. Should he have had to? Well, when comparing him to managers/coaches whose biggest and most admirable feats mightn't even come at the top of their standing, but on the path leading to it, kinda, yeah. Or at least in lieu of that, shown his own journey to success through adversity, which for him is solely Europe until he faces a league side who matches his own for resources and ability to overhaul at the click of a summer window finger.
Pep is what he is, and his biggest contributions probably lay in implementation of systems that send shockwaves through the sport, but in terms of greatest, his situation is too disparate to truly be assessed in the real world - give his resources to others and they wouldn't have won less.
And ending, it astounds me the amount of people who don't understand what resources refer to when it comes to City. Simply stating clubs like United have spent 'more' whilst taking official figures as fact, that also give zero account of expenditure throughout the club in a given season. City's upkeep is astronomical, and as seamless as their operations appear to be, the amount of money pumped in to maintain that dwarfs everyone they compete with domestically, let alone when the actual dodginess of payments across the squad are factored, or not... as the case clearly is for those going by the "facts" presented to them. In game terms, it's the constant production of elite talent and constant smoothing of edges to hone the product.
I'd rate Klopp's achievements at Liverpool above what Pep has done with City.
He's done nothing more than expected with the resources at his disposal. Arguably a fair bit less.
Exactly. It's not some ringing endorsement, that's for sure. With those advantages, it's exactly what's supposed to happen, and yet in Europe, they aren't pulling up trees.
The resources at your disposal are absolutely vital in assessment - if you have an excellent, world beating squad, and you're of the calibre to be talked about in all-time regard, assessment parameters adjust by default.
There's relief that there was no double-treble, because it propels to another stratosphere, one you can't really argue against, even for an artificial team and a manager who has no idea of what the proverbial trenches are. That would be the trust fund baby taking performance to levels unheard of - even if he did start at the top, that'd be really pushing out the envelope to probably what is close to max of what state resources can provide a club within the real world.
This would actually be an excellent exercise.
1. Select several vectors:
- Success as an underdog
- Overall trophies won
- Tactical acumen
- Tactical revolutionary (were their tactics transformative)
- Man management
- Player development (youth and adult)
- Club legacy (relevance within a club's history)
- Managerial/DOF skills (did they take more responsibilities beyond coaching, and how well did they do this?)
2. Assign relative weights to selected vectors. How important is one vector related to another? Maybe overall trophies is a 10, and success as an underdog is a 8, and tactical acumen is a 5? Whatever.
3. Rate a manager in each vector.
4. Find the weighted sum of a manager's score
5. Rank the managers based on this weighted score.
- Adversity (conditions whilst at a club)
- Jeopardy (consequence for bad purchases)
- Reinvention (some are unable to reinvent once 'found out' others are never found out due to their capacity to adapt)
The weighting is a sticking point because the underdog aspect or the upcoming great arc is World Cup equivalent level of points for some and is barely even registered by others. Xabi Alonso right now, for example is really doing something special and if he goes on to be the next great one, his current feat(s) may never be surpassed for some.
To be fair, I don't think many are arguing Guardiola isn't a great manager. They are simply implying Guardiola isn't as undisputed GOAT or as clear cut great as some think he is because of his unlimited resources at City.Yeah, that's exactly the reason why Van Gaal, Mourinho, ETH, and others did not live up to expectations at United, lack of resources..
or Ancelotti at Bayern.. or Chelsea's troubles.. or PSG not winning a UCL.. all about lack of resources..
or SAF getting eliminated against Goteborg, Galatasaray, Basel, Benfica, Lille or him losing multiple times in the 2nd round of the UCL etc. it's all about lack of resources..
You know, I know, everybody knows that Pep starts at United tomorrow, United will probably win the PL title in the next two years with the same spending, the title that they have missed past 12 years.
Well, that all looks nice and tidy, except you've omitted all the players that were already there, which other coaches would have not been able to cull in fell swoops like you get to when money is of no issue whatsoever (please don't bring up FFP, especially so considering what City are charged with).Did he not do that?
Under Guardiola City have signed the following CBs: Stones, Laporte, Dias, Ake, Akanji, and Gvardiol. He's used all of them quite a bit. The only one who isn't at the club is Laporte. An amazingly solid record at signing CBs there.
City signed the following FBs: Walker, Mendy, Danilo, Cancelo, Angeliño, Zinchenko. Walker has played a ton. So did Cancelo before falling out with the manager. Zinchenko left out of his own volition. Mendy was a permacrock and had infamous legal troubles. That leaves two players they 'cycled' through: Danilo and Angeliño. Hardly out of step with any other club.
And?Manuel Pellegrini got a higher point tally in his lone season at Real Madrid than Jose Mourinho did in two of his three seasons there.
I mean, there's no doubt Pep has his merits and he will be considered an all-time great when all is said and done (his Barca stint alone would place him there), but no matter how nice aesthetics are, or how 'bold' tactics can be, he has bottom lines others do not due to his artificial conditions and what is then expected of him. The last time he faced a squad anywhere near equivalent to his own was Real in Spain. That's it. Apart from that, it's the feats of those trying to challenge him that are more impressive as far as league campaigns go because they are doing so much with less. And the only place where there has been an even playing field - the CL - he has not pulled up trees, which reframes his league dominance with exorbitant advantages - take them away, as the CL does, and he's in the pack with everyone else.To be fair, I don't think many are arguing Guardiola isn't a great manager. They are simply implying Guardiola isn't as undisputed GOAT or as clear cut great as some think he is because of his unlimited resources at City.
As for your last line, to paint a clearer picture, we should add some comparable real life context to the starting point at which Guardiola would have been a manager at Utd:
He would have been working under Glazers/Woodward where he'll need at least a season or two of really good transfer windows to get the team playing the way he wants. He'd have to make sure every single one nails it, because he won't get to replace them and he needs to make sure Utd achieve top four regularly.
He would be facing against a City side (with unlimited resources) and a really top manager or their replacements in all of his seasons at Utd.
He would also be facing Klopp's Liverpool team and the league title challenging Chelsea and/or Arsenal teams too. Not to mention your Spurs, Villas, Newcastles etc.
Would he have a good chance of winning us a title? Yes because he is a great manager. Would be it as a certain as how he's done it at City with the above conditions? Hell no. Would he be winning 6 titles and 1 CL against those other teams/clubs and managers? You'd have to be in dream land to think he could replicate that or even get as close/dominant, which is the crux of 'how good' his managerial achievements should be perceived at.
Yes I agree and that's exactly why I wanted to paint the picture of how his time at another club in England not name City could fare. If he joined us in 2016 and even with our Glazer/Woodward shambles, I could say 'yeah I'd think he could win us a title or two and a few cups in 8 years (if he stayed that long)' and if I was really generous but let's be honest would be going against his record I'd say 'he'll also win a CL too'. So 2 titles and 1 CL, which again is really generous. If he did that with the examples I have given, then it would be a way more legitimate claim to GOAT than his current City achievements.I mean, there's no doubt Pep has his merits and he will be considered an all-time great when all is said and done (his Barca stint alone would place him there), but no matter how nice aesthetics are, or how 'bold' tactics can be, he has bottom lines others do not due to his artificial conditions and what is then expected of him. The last time he faced a squad anywhere near equivalent to his own was Real in Spain. That's it. Apart from that, it's the feats of those trying to challenge him that are more impressive as far as league campaigns go because they are doing so much with less. And the only place where there has been an even playing field - the CL - he has not pulled up trees, which reframes his league dominance with exorbitant advantages - take them away, as the CL does, and he's in the pack with everyone else.
So nothing is clear cut and there are more questions than answers.
You said he 'amassed crazy point totals.' That's true, but the extra context is that everyone who managed Real Madrid or Barcelona from 2009 to 2015 'amassed crazy point totals'. That has less to do with managerial achievements and more to do with the state of the league at the time.And?
I disagree.Well, that all looks nice and tidy, except you've omitted all the players that were already there, which other coaches would have not been able to cull in fell swoops like you get to when money is of no issue whatsoever (please don't bring up FFP, especially so considering what City are charged with).
No chance. He started at City with Kompany, Silva, Nasri, Sterling, Toure, KDB and Fernandinho already at the club and had to spend £530m in two summers on top of that to win them the league. This was a team coming off the back of a CL semi final run and who won the league the year before that.You know, I know, everybody knows that Pep starts at United tomorrow, United will probably win the PL title in the next two years with the same spending, the title that they have missed past 12 years.
Its called a squad building. Its something the owners of PSG just learned only last season after so many years owning the club.. the comparison between the two arab projects in European football cant be more contrasting..City's enormous financial advantages obtained through irregularities are a black mark against them, for sure. I just think the influence of this is overstated.
City under Guardiola have done an excellent job at signing players and having them perform. The majority of their signings range from hits to solid. There's only been a few flops. It's a better record than clubs with money, such as Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, or Barcelona have. If they were signing the most obvious superstars that'd be easy to dismiss as a consequence of access to money, but they aren't. They sign what looks to me like a normal amount of players to replenish their squad in a normal way.
This is what most doesn't seem to get. The biggest reason why City is where they are now is because they've been great in the market. It's just about impossible to build a squad as good as they have without being great in the market. Even if United bought 10 senior players a year they wouldn't have gotten to the place City is now because the fact that about four out of five signings are unsuccessful here.City's enormous financial advantages obtained through irregularities are a black mark against them, for sure. I just think the influence of this is overstated.
City under Guardiola have done an excellent job at signing players and having them perform. The majority of their signings range from hits to solid. There's only been a few flops. It's a better record than clubs with money, such as Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, or Barcelona have. If they were signing the most obvious superstars that'd be easy to dismiss as a consequence of access to money, but they aren't. They sign what looks to me like a normal amount of players to replenish their squad in a normal way.
The way people talk about it, you'd think they signed 15 players per season and moved on the 12 that flopped.
I agree I think City's team gets overrated here, they have a very very good central midfield, but beyond that it's not that special.Whereas it’s not to the same extent, but let’s look at the careers of Aké, Akanji, Ferran Torres, Cancelo, Delph, Jesus,… without Pep. If we make a Pep best XI out of his 3 teams, I don’t think I’d have a single City player in it. No it’s not Clough winning a European Cup with Forest or even Alonso winning the Bundesliga with Dortmund but it’s not some squad full of all time greats either.
Heavily agree.Whereas it’s not to the same extent, but let’s look at the careers of Aké, Akanji, Ferran Torres, Cancelo, Delph, Jesus,… without Pep. If we make a Pep best XI out of his 3 teams, I don’t think I’d have a single City player in it. No it’s not Clough winning a European Cup with Forest or even Alonso winning the Bundesliga with Dortmund but it’s not some squad full of all time greats either.
Very much overstated and exaggerated. But regarding criticism of Pep, what isn't?City's enormous financial advantages obtained through irregularities are a black mark against them, for sure. I just think the influence of this is overstated.
City under Guardiola have done an excellent job at signing players and having them perform. The majority of their signings range from hits to solid. There's only been a few flops. It's a better record than clubs with money, such as Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, or Barcelona have. If they were signing the most obvious superstars that'd be easy to dismiss as a consequence of access to money, but they aren't. They sign what looks to me like a normal amount of players to replenish their squad in a normal way.
The way people talk about it, you'd think they signed 15 players per season and moved on the 12 that flopped.
