Jose > Pep - is it such a ridiculous notion?

VP89 said:
Why do we talk about Liverpool and Inter during that time?

Before Klopp and Jose took over, they were big underdogs. And they took over, transcended the team to being more than that and made them into clubs where you can conceive of them winning big. Then they did win big.
Click to expand...

I don't think the situations are all that comparable.

Inter were the third best team in Serie A in the three seasons before Calciopoli. This was at a time when Serie A was quite strong, with Juventus and AC Milan reaching CL finals in this period, and Inter reaching a semifinal. After Calciopoli they became the best team in Serie A, partly because their rivals weakened, partly because they were able to sign better players. They won two league titles in a row under Mancini and played the cup final both times.

By comparison, Liverpool were the fifth best team in the PL in the three seasons before Klopp took over. They were below City, Chelsea, United, and Arsenal in points, hadn't won a league title in decades, and had missed CL qualification in 4 of the previous 5 seasons.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Messi wasn't really a starter back then, he had 11 starts in the league and 4 in the CL that season. He was playing in the B team the year before.
Click to expand...
He was becoming a more and more important part of the team though before his injury in March. He started both legs of the CL round of 16 against Mourinho's Chelsea so I think it's fair to say that had he been available, he would have started the final.
 
It's hard to find a direct analogy to Jose's Inter, but you could compare them to Benitez's Liverpool.

Benitez turned Liverpool into a competitive European team: they played 2 CL finals and won it once. But he did not improve them much domestically: their average point tally was only 6-7 points better than under Houllier.

The difference is that the baseline point tally for Inter was much higher than for Liverpool.
 
Siorac said:
He was becoming a more and more important part of the team though before his injury in March. He started both legs of the CL round of 16 against Mourinho's Chelsea so I think it's fair to say that had he been available, he would have started the final.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But I think the poster's broad point is correct: the Barcelona team that won the CL was not the one that Guardiola won it with.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Maybe, maybe not. But I think the poster's broad point is correct: the Barcelona team that won the CL was not the one that Guardiola won it with.
Click to expand...
Which is why I started the post with saying that I agree in general. The "only three players" thing made it seem more drastic than it really was, though.
 
VivaObertan said:
"There's nothing to pay. [Manchester City boss Pep] Guardiola can make people pay for these things. If he's not happy with someone, he says goodbye and brings in another. It's not a problem. We don't have that option here. Here we have a coach who has to keep hammering it in, working day after day trying to get the best out of these players.”
Click to expand...

Has he succeeded at this while at Roma?
 
VivaObertan said:
"There's nothing to pay. [Manchester City boss Pep] Guardiola can make people pay for these things. If he's not happy with someone, he says goodbye and brings in another. It's not a problem. We don't have that option here. Here we have a coach who has to keep hammering it in, working day after day trying to get the best out of these players.”

A quote from Jose after yesterday’s game.

Team Jose here BTW.
Click to expand...

Mourinho could spend all the money in the world and his team wouldn't be as good as Guardiola's. There is a reason Guardiola can spend that much and that reason is that he's the best at his job and the richest clubs want the best coach money can buy.
 
VivaObertan said:
I think so, they won the UEFA Conference League and were runners up in the Europa League and you wouldn't say their squad is better than the top 12-15 PL teams.
Click to expand...

They've finished 6th twice in the league. The second year it was really 7th but Juventus were docked points. I think that's middling.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
They've finished 6th twice in the league. The second year it was really 7th but Juventus were docked points. I think that's middling.
Click to expand...

Also, West Ham finished 14th last year when they won the Conference League. Sevilla, who defeated him in the Europa League final, were 12th in La Liga last year when they won and currently sit 15th in the table. It's not exactly high praise to suggest that this is Jose's level now. It's akin to the praise Gary O'Neil got for "overperforming" with Bournemouth last season. Grim.
 
If you account for inflation in football, Mourinho's Chelsea 04/06 and his Real were the most expensive squads ever assembled. If it's easier to work with more expensive squads and more talented players, why couldn't Mourinho last more seasons at Chelsea and Madrid (and United, too)? Hint: because it's a myth that it's easier to have success at a big club season in season out than to win the league with Leicester or to win the CL like Di Matteo. What Fergie did, especially against that Chelsea side, was exceptional. What Guardiola is doing now, namely winning multiple titles over many years at the same club is the really difficult part, especially if you are changing how football is being played at the same time.
 
GhastlyHun said:
Compare the margins by which the opposition was outspent. Chelsea at the time spent multiples of their rivals, with a transfer deficit 4-5 times as large.
Click to expand...

City Group have spent significantly every season without fail since 2008. Not just players and wages, but fast-tracking the hoard of youth players, training facilities, non-playing staff, club infrastructure, while also buying a growing list of feeder clubs around the world to move their players between.

And let’s not forget the simple matter of their fraudulent accounting as well.

As bad as Chelsea were at the time, City are on a different planet.
 
Zen86 said:
Crazy how far his reputation has fallen, he was a great manager in his time. The difference between Jose and Pep is he didn’t find his Abu Dhabi backers with a blank chequebook.
Click to expand...

Mourinho was literally the greatest spending manager ever untill recently when Pep took 1st place. His Chelsea stint was his blank chequebook 1st time around. And he's spent at every big club.
 
Vitro said:
If both Mourinho and Pep became available tomorrow who would the big clubs want to hire? Big clubs with dozens of expert advisors and millions, perhaps billions at stake. That’s the answer.
Click to expand...

Mourinho is past it. In the past it would be an even contest. Now its Pep's golden balls.
 
Matt007a said:
Mourinho in his prime was right up there but most of his achievements came in the space of 10 years. He has many great attributes but the ability to adapt his style to suit the changing game isn’t one of them.

I think his treble with Inter and winning the CL with Porto are greater individual achievements than anything Pep has done, when you take the quality of squads into consideration.

However he didn’t change the way football was played across the globe. Pep has undoubtably done that, even if he’s never really tested himself with lesser teams. His style of football has also stood the test of time. He’s been doing it now for 15 years and is still playing with a style no one really knows how to stop or better.
Click to expand...

Yeah this sums it up perfectly. Mourinho will always be a step below because despite his great achievements in that period, he’s never shown an ability to adapt onwards compared to the true GOATS like Pep and SAF.
 
Zehner said:
Mourinho could spend all the money in the world and his team wouldn't be as good as Guardiola's. There is a reason Guardiola can spend that much and that reason is that he's the best at his job and the richest clubs want the best coach money can buy.
Click to expand...

His team was better in 2012

And his inter team beat Barca fair and square in the cl 2010 semis.
 
Last edited:
I think that Europa league loss was painful for Jose because he had a legitimate chance at a redemption arc. Should he have won that, PSG might have given him a chance to take the helm on the theory that the league is already a fairly safe bet and he is a cup specialist capable of bringing them the big prize. With the loss, all of that went out of the window given that he wasn't exactly doing wonders in the league.

One final Jose "F you" to his haters would have been entertaining and, had he won both the Europa with Roma and a CL with PSG, this debate might well be alive and raging. Now, we only have the Saudi King's Cup to look forward to.
 
Gehrman said:
Mourinho was literally the greatest spending manager ever untill recently when Pep took 1st place. His Chelsea stint was his blank chequebook 1st time around. And he's spent at every big club.
Click to expand...

Jose’s squad pales in comparison to Pep’s, it’s not even close. And Jose was battling against Roman who obviously had his own opinions on players. Abu Dhabi’s entire football strategy revolves around Pep, and that was the case before he even joined them.
 
Siorac said:
I agree with you in general but that's a little bit misleading. Xavi and Iniesta were both important players in Rijkaard's Barcelona but Xavi tore his ligament in 2005/06 so he missed half a season while Iniesta was on the bench in Paris and was brought on at half time. And of course Messi himself only missed out on the final because of injury.

Also also, Rafa Marquez was still there when Guardiola took over and only left in 2010.
Click to expand...
It was also a club that had won the league two season ago and were going through a lull under Rijkaard as that team was coming to end of their cycle. They still had top class talent and were usually dominating games (but torn up on the counter and generally disorganised). As good as the work Pep does was, it wasn’t some club that didn’t know what success was and hence needed to be trained to know how to win.

He’s still the better manager and Jose fell off a cliff but he has major flaws in his legacy as well.
 
Treble said:
If you account for inflation in football, Mourinho's Chelsea 04/06 and his Real were the most expensive squads ever assembled. If it's easier to work with more expensive squads and more talented players, why couldn't Mourinho last more seasons at Chelsea and Madrid (and United, too)? Hint: because it's a myth that it's easier to have success at a big club season in season out than to win the league with Leicester or to win the CL like Di Matteo. What Fergie did, especially against that Chelsea side, was exceptional. What Guardiola is doing now, namely winning multiple titles over many years at the same club is the really difficult part, especially if you are changing how football is being played at the same time.
Click to expand...

No. How could you possibly argue that after looking at the league winners and CL winners in bigger leagues (or a lot of smaller ones tbh) the past 3-4 decades. There might be a lot of frequent managerial changes at many big clubs over the last few decades, but the number of managers that weren't just one or two season and done is far more than there are true underdog league winners of the Leicester sort.
 
It’s ridiculous. I couldn’t really take anyone serious trying to claim otherwise.
 
Can’t stand Pep but he’s mile ahead of Jose now. Jose has had money at various clubs and failed spectacularly. Pep’s had 2 seasons in his entire career where things didn’t go to plan.

Mourinho has had the best individual seasons (Porto & Inter Milan) but Pep’s career has been more consistent with success. Even then a lot of made of Jose’s Inter Milan treble but forget the mess Serie A rivals were in at the time. Juventus were relegated and AC Milan were struggling. It was a one club league when Jose arrived.
 
This hasn't been a debate since Pep showed him up in the Premier League.

But Jose was once a tremendous manager. He's not been the same since Real broke him.
 
Gehrman said:
His team was better in 2012

And his inter team beat Barca fair and square in the cl 2010 semis.
Click to expand...
You can beat a team without being better
I don't think Dimatteo team was the best in Europe that year despite beating Barcelona and Bayern
 
kaiser1 said:
You can beat a team without being better
I don't think Dimatteo team was the best in Europe that year despite beating Barcelona and Bayern
Click to expand...

I do think Real Madrid could be argued as being better than Barcelona in the 2011-2012 season.

It's pretty close.
 
Its not. Prime Mourinho was a different animal. Didnt he go like 9 years without losing a home league game?

Before he started fighting with players he was the undisputed best manager in the world.

If you held an NBA style draft and gave them a free choice of any given players in any given time I would actually back a Mourinho's team to beat Pep's team more times head to head.

Also there is no way that someone can prove logically that a great defence isnt as important as a great offence. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
 
Canagel said:
Its not. Prime Mourinho was a different animal. Didnt he go like 9 years without losing a home league game?

Before he started fighting with players he was the undisputed best manager in the world.

If you held an NBA style draft and gave them a free choice of any given players in any given time I would actually back a Mourinho's team to beat Pep's team more times head to head.

Also there is no way that someone can prove logically that a great defence isnt as important as a great offence. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
The above was Mourinho first time at Chelsea and he came short. We can argue that Mourinho Madrid came close to an all star team top down and he was fired
 
Canagel said:
Its not. Prime Mourinho was a different animal. Didnt he go like 9 years without losing a home league game?

Also there is no way that someone can prove logically that a great defence isnt as important as a great offence. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

19 home draws gives you 19 points and a record of not losing a home league game all season. 17 draws, 1 win, and 1 defeat gives you 20 points and no record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.