I would like to kindly disagree. Maybe Klopp can take a team with weight of expectation and win consistently but he is yet to show it and the jury is out for him. Maybe Potter should have stuck to his Brighton lads. The moment he got support everybody began to see him as a clown ( no disrespect). The point I’m making is that money tends to give you a definitive and conclusive perspective more often than not and this can sometimes be damning.
Is Pep the greatest manager of all time?
- Thread starter Irrational.
- Start date
Klopp reached 3 champions league finals, won 1 and got 196 points across two seasons, i really don't think the jury is out
what about mourinho. Who achieved instant success at Chelsea, took a real Madrid side that had 6 successive last 16 exits and immediately made them into a side that consistently reached the semi finals and that won trebles with inter and Porto. Surely you can't argue that during his peak hewas a better manager based on that, even if he isn't now?It's interesting though that the jury is out on klopp for you becusse he's only won league titles with dortmund twice, won a league tittle and a chmaoions league and reached 3 champions league finals with Liverpool, but pep only winning when he has the best players, the jury isn't out for him
that's outrageously biasedYou see that the criteria is different. While you expect Pep to win every season and every trophy you can excuse Klopp not winning and gloss it over by such statements like “fatigue”, “XYZ points”, “played in the finals” etc. The expectation is not the same and this is a factor you take lightly. When the pressure is higher doing anything the tendency to fail is higher also. I’m saying about Jose that even though he won UCL with seemingly less, he couldn’t repeat that feat with mighty Madrid just to tell you that football ain’t a linear graph ( must have said this 101 times, lol). Yes the jury is out for Klopp not Pep because the trophy count is in the latter’s favour. The guy with the belt doesn’t need to challenge the other guy to a fight. It’s the one that seeks the belt that would normally ask for the fight. I doubt that Klopp would leave his safe haven though.Klopp reached 3 champions league finals, won 1 and got 196 points across two seasons, i really don't think the jury is out
It's interesting though that the jury is out on klopp for you becusse he's only won league titles with dortmund twice, won a league tittle and a chmaoions league and reached 3 champions league finals with Liverpool, but pep only winning when he has the best players, the jury isn't out for him
Yeah how many CL's did Barcelona win post Pep?
They won it straight after Pep - using the players Pep had improved.
Football is not a video game, a teacher teaching his students leaves the students more in knowledge and they don't lose that after the manager or teacher goes.
Messi and Barcelona became less an European Giant the further and further they went from Pep philosophy.
What they did in La Liga means crap all to me - Xavi winning it recently when they are hardly an Europa League quality team shows exactly what I mean.
How many CL trophies did Pep win at Bayern despite the fact that they won it just before and just after he left? Barca had also won the CL 2 years before Pep took over and the Spanish contingent had just won the Euros at international level, was he just riding on the back of Rijkaard and Aragones' previous work or something?
Only Pep gets the credit for other managers winning things. You'd think the guy invented the idea of passing the ball or even the ball itself the way some of you go on about him.
Since Mourinho's departure from Real Madrid, they have made the CL semifinals 8 out of 10 times. Long, long past the point where any of his players or tactics are there. Meanwhile, Mourinho has struggled to take his teams to CL semifinals since then (only doing it once iirc, his first season back at Chelsea).
If you applied to Mourinho the logic you apply to Guardiola, you would have to conclude that he did not make them into this. He was simply there at the right time, carriied along by the players, just as Guardiola was ostensibly carried along at Barcelona (who continued to achieve things after his departure).
As someone else said,
Last edited:
He literally created what nearly everyone says to be the greatest football team of all time - that in itself puts him in to GOAT manager status.
The people who were crying for Messi to be the GOAT even though Ronaldo was the player who tested himself more in different leagues are just not willing to give Guardiola the GOAT status of a manager.
It's very weird.
If Messi is the GOAT of a player - Pep is the GOAT of a manager.
You're talking about Guardiola as if he was an ancient manager about whom only his successes and little other information remains, so we have to draw conclusions from the scarce facts we know surely. But you can see his work every week since years.
And let's be real, Pep's teams display by far the most advanced team play out of all clubs out there. That's the handwriting of a great manager, similar to Klopp. Yet you're claiming that the one coach who makes his team work together and create synergies between his players like nobody else is the one who is reliant on individual quality. It's just a very flawed line of argument.
Yeah, this seems to be his entire argument. It's like "Pep can't win without world class players in every position". Pep wins, no matter which players were playing - "oh, he had world class players in every position, that's why he won".
Let's look through the world class additions he made to his team in 2017, to suddenly make all his players world class:
The two players he added in the summer that played enough to be called starters was Walker and Ederson. Neiter of those are actually world class. They're very good players alright, but not world class. Which begs the question, how exactly does an addition of two non-world-class players make every single player into world class?
Then it was "money spent well makes a difference". It's pointed out that Barcelona's transfer spend during his first two years wasn't exactly great, most of it was spent on players that barely played, flopped or Zlatan (great player, but didn't exactly work out). Then it becomes "yeah, he won there because he had a great team to start with". So it doesn't count when Guardiola buys well to build his team, it doesn't count when he buys poorly because then he had great players to begin with. Basically, it doesn't count when Guardiola wins with good players. But then it somehow counts tenfold when Klopp wins with good players, that he also happened to pretty much all have bought for himself. In fact, Klopp's Liverpool is sort of similar to Pep's Barcelona in the sense that they had the best first XI's in the league (Klopps at least had this a few years, his team is obviously in decline now because of lack of investment) but both had pretty weak bench options (at least compared to their biggest rivals in the league).
Last edited:
I think that hasn't really been mentioned enough. IMO Guardiola never had three players as good as Salah, van Dijk and Mané at the same time while at City, spending or not.
Seriously? When the guy walked into City he instantly had players like Aguero, Silva and Toure in his squad. That's before he spent a dime.
While I don't agree with the Mane inclusion, I do agree on a more broader take that his post seemingly implies. Before this season, I would have picked Liverpool's first XI over City's first XI for the last 3-4 years.
Also Yaya Toure was pretty much finished when Pep arrived. He was no longer top drawer even in the prior season, but it was further evident during Pep's 1st season.
I mentioned this earlier, but the analytical flaw is in trying to present Guardiola's City and Barcelona experiences as the same thing. They just aren't.
There are criticisms and caveats that can be made about both stints, but the argument goes to hell when you try to pass off the squad quality as equal, or the spending advantages as equal, and the situations as analogous.
It gets even more nonsensical when you bring up Alex Ferguson into it, because as others have pointed out, it requires acting like United's academy players were mediocre.
Last edited:
Mohamed Salah at Liverpool has been better than Sergio Aguero. Higher Balon d'Or placements, more Golden Boots, more 'Player of the Year' awards, etc.
It has been said before, but the perception of certain players inside and outside the UK is not the same. A lot of the argument about City's 'world class' squad just does not resonate to anyone who isn't PL-centric.
Sure, but not sure the same can be said about Liverpool's match day squad vs City's. Liverpool bring on Milner and Origi and then watch while City bring on Mahrez/B.Silva and Jesus/Sterling.
You should replace Toure with KDB in this example.
I'm not the one who brought up Yaya initially.
People on this forum literally believe City have the best squad in the world consistently, 2 world class players in every position, etc. Think of any hyperbolic praise and it's likely been attributed to that squad in the past few years. I mean heck, I've seen some say they have the best squad ever.
It's really only this past season that one can make a strong argument they've got the best squad. They've never had 2 world class players in every position. Stronger squads in the past decade never even had that. In all likelihood, no team in football history ever had that luxury.
It's just constantly brought up as a way to deflect blame off certain United managers for failing to compete(this was extremely ripe during the Jose/OGS days) and a way to belittle Pep's achievements(fully aware of the charges City face - and I admit I've lost some respect for Pep).
What on earth are you talking about?
This is City's squad in 18/19
https://www.bdfutbol.com/en/t/t2018-192002.html
No other side in the league had that sort of strength in depth and its so weird to see anyone pretend otherwise
Liverpool's first xi wasn't far off City, though seeing Mane perform for bayern you could say a fair bit is down to klopp. But Liverpool have never have the same strength and depth and over a season that will cost you
United's academy players came through while fergie was manager, none had achieved anything. Guardiola had 4 of the top 10 wpoty in the season he took over, it shows how biased you are that you're trying to pretend these are in any way similar
Maybe guardiola is the most influential manager, but greatest for me is based on achievements, and while others have overperformed relative to expectations, guardiola hasn't
Taking over a side that has finished 2nd as a rookie manager and then delivering ALL TROPHIES within a single first year is not outperforming relative to expectations of JM99
Last edited:
I really hate his style of football. I just find it so boring and I feel it sucks the joy out of the game.
But his results say he should be in the conversation.
But his results say he should be in the conversation.
Pep made a bunch of very good player into world class player.
Winning trophies with a team that has 4 of the top 10 wpoty, with no other side having more than 2 isn't overpeforming expectations by that much
So your expectation for a rookie manager taking over a team which just finished runners up in the previous season is that this same rookie manager has to win all available trophies? That is your expectation? Is this a joke?
Do you even know what you are saying? Do you know how stupid it sounds? Do you understand that it wasnt done before or since in top flight?
Last edited:
I'm not saying that was the expectation at the time. I'm saying knowing what we do about xavi, Messi and iniesta, particularly Messi who at the time was considered injury prone, that maybe Barca did have the best side in every tournament they competed in
Testing yourself in different leagues by bouncing from the the best team in one country to another is a horrible criteria for a goat. This applies to pep and Ronaldo. No problem with people seeing pep as the GOAT manager but it has nothing to do with different leagues
Still better than not testing yourself at all.
Playing with a team that won a CL before you became a starter, then with the best manager of all time, then the left overs under the next manager whilst doing shit all in the CL the further and further they get away from Pep’s management is just not testing yourself at all.
Dont try to shift goal post. You said in your post that he did not exceed expections. He won all 6 in his first senior managerial year and still did not exceed your expectations, it means it is your minimum expectation of him is to win every single trophies available to him in his first year.
You are merely setting him up to fail in your measure, because no other managers, including himself, won all 6 trophies before or after that feat.
Tbh in the other post I did say he had exceeded expectations in his first sraosn if we go by betting odds (though to my mind he had the strongest team) but that he has been favourite for every other trophy he's ever won, favourite for the last 6 chmapions leagues, only winning one. Whereas klopp has never been favourite for any trophy that he's won
So he did exceed JM99’s expections now. Great, carry on
Once, in an entire career. Placing him below simeone, klopp and mourinho, who have done so multiple times
And how much zidane test himself? Pele?
it’s a useless stat. Ibra went to tons of different leagues fared well, but nobody sees him as a top 5 striker all time due to lack of CL’s.
kdb be one of the all time great midfielders despite all of his great years mostly coming under city. Same with aguero. Same with modric, same with Buffon.
plus Messi already broke a record of 16 assists in 36 matches in ligue 1 which was a record and a WC with Argentina but who cares about “testing” yourself.
ronaldo made a boneheaded move leaving Real Madrid. Shockingly bad decision. And also played with leftovers from a CL finalist team. It didn’t matter. Nobody will remember the Juventus years. Even if he got worse and worse the “further and further away from zidanes” management.
So for pep to go from the best team in one country to another is meaningless. “Testing yourself” is an incredibly rubbish criteria
So you agree he is the best just not the greatest?
No, like I wouldn't consider the best footballer to be the most influential, I'd consider them to be the most talented or who achieved the most with their talent
I have no interest in Barcelona, it’s quite amusing seeing them get their comeuppance after years of smugly looking down at everyone else. But that’s neither here nor there, I’m not going to sit and ask you to just admit your primary interest is with Ronaldo, because what’s the point really? You having an intense dislike of Barcelona and anyone connected with them sounds a lot closer to the truth; it would certainly explain your desperate desire to try and convince people Guardiola and Messi aren’t really what they’re hyped up to be. I’m sure that’s just a massive coincidence though
I’m guessing Liverpool forked out all that money for Andy Carroll’s technical abilities, same way United splashed £80m for Maguire’s technical prowess? Next you’ll be telling me Jack Grealish is a world class player on a technical level too just because they’ve paid over the odds for him. Why don’t you just call a spade a spade and admit that the list of players I gave you with whom Guardiola has utilised extensively to win major titles, are not world class talents with superior technical abilities as you’ve been claiming.
Guardiola just happens to have a way of finding players that suit his system and has a way of elevating other players beyond what most feel (or felt) they were capable of. That’s why he’s lauded in footballing circles by players, ex players, fellow coaches and ex coaches. But they obviously haven’t been privy to your pearls of wisdom mate! I wish what you were implying was true and it was all about money, then we might see some far more interesting title races. But ultimately I think the best think for the Premier League is that Guardiola leaves, then we’ll see a more even playing field.
Well I'm a big fan of a player who was a big part of a very successful period and don't feel affinity towards a manager who beat us in 2 finals and has managed city for 7 years, i know that seems strange, on a united forum, we should all be big fans of the city manager.I have no interest in Barcelona, it’s quite amusing seeing them get their comeuppance after years of smugly looking down at everyone else. But that’s neither here nor there, I’m not going to sit and ask you to just admit your primary interest is with Ronaldo, because what’s the point really? You having an intense dislike of Barcelona and anyone connected with them sounds a lot closer to the truth; it would certainly explain your desperate desire to try and convince people Guardiola and Messi aren’t really what they’re hyped up to be. I’m sure that’s just a massive coincidence though
I’m guessing Liverpool forked out all that money for Andy Carroll’s technical abilities, same way United splashed £80m for Maguire’s technical prowess? Next you’ll be telling me Jack Grealish is a world class player on a technical level too just because they’ve paid over the odds for him. Why don’t you just call a spade a spade and admit that the list of players I gave you with whom Guardiola has utilised extensively to win major titles, are not world class talents with superior technical abilities as you’ve been claiming.
Guardiola just happens to have a way of finding players that suit his system and has a way of elevating other players beyond what most feel (or felt) they were capable of. That’s why he’s lauded in footballing circles by players, ex players, fellow coaches and ex coaches. But they obviously haven’t been privy to your pearls of wisdom mate! I wish what you were implying was true and it was all about money, then we might see some far more interesting title races. But ultimately I think the best think for the Premier League is that Guardiola leaves, then we’ll see a more even playing field.
You and the other pep acolytes can't even admit he's had better players and more resources than every other manager. He took over the treble winners at Bayern and got spanked 5-0 by Madrid the next year even with the addition of lewandowski. Surely you're not going to try and argue his Barca team wasn't totally stacked? So that leaves city, a team that almost everyone agrees has an enormous financial advantage over every other side, even if you just include what's oj the books and not the money they've been shown paying off the books.
It's not all about money, we've spent money badly. But just as it would e ridiculous to suggest Chelsea under abramovich won just because of mourinho's genius and had nothing to do with the money spent, so it is to suggest that Pep having a billion in seven years spent despite inheriting probably the strongest squad in the league is all down to his genius and none down to his resources
Maybe some credit to Klopp elevating his players there and vice versa. The thing is Klopp repeated his feat from Dortmund at Liverpool. And I guess you could say Guardiola repeated his succes wherever he went in the best jobs but it took him 12 years to win another CL despite managing the the main favourites for such a long time.
They had not won the CL in the previous years and did not win it again until 2019. If we apply the logic you've been using in this thread, then maybe the squad wasn't actually that amazing and it was the manager (Heynckes) who got them to overperform.
United have, indeed, spent money badly. So have Chelsea. and Arsenal. PSG. Barcelona. Juventus. Real Madrid. Probably some fans would even argue Bayern Munich.
Money matters in football. The club in 17th place with a budget ten times lower than City's will have no chance of competing against them. But at the top, money just doesn't matter in the same way.
Last edited: