Jose > Pep - is it such a ridiculous notion?

[Tyrion]

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.

This would match my opinion. Jose's achievements in his first decade of management are as impressive as anything any manager has done that I can think of. Unfortunately he's become a bit of a caricature and all that drama has distracted from that. Plus Peps focus on tactics and "philosophy" appeals more to some people than Jose's more traditional tactics and motivational skills.

 

[Siorac]

Even the Porto CL win is a bit overrated.

It was an extremely freakish tournament in which the semifinalists were Deportivo La Coruña, Chelsea, Monaco, and Porto. A plucky underdog was going to win no matter what.

Yeah, I didn't want to bring that up but really, the only remotely top team they beat was an uninspiring United side and even then they needed a massive refereeing error and a goalkeeping howler. Do people remember our starting line-up that night? Probably not:

Howard - Phil Neville, Gary Neville, Brown, O'Shea - Fletcher, Djemba-Djemba, Butt, Giggs - Scholes, Van Nistelrooy

Yeah, you can only beat what's in front of you but look at that. It's still a significant achievement by Porto - Deportivo and Monaco were good teams who performed miracles to get as far as they did - but it needs some context. It's not exactly Greece 2004.

 

[Mb194dc]

He was excellent at Madrid overall even though it soured towards the end.

His 11/12 side is still one of the most entertaining teams I’ve ever seen play football. Free-flowing, scintillating football throughout. That team still holds the record for the most goals scored in a single league. season in the history of the top 5 leagues.

He also lay the foundation and groundwork for the club’s continued success after his departure by crucially breaking their last 16 curse in the CL and making pivotal and historic signings like Luka Modric. I really doubt they win La decima or later editions of the competition if not for his work from 2010-13 in making Real Madrid a European powerhouse again.

He really should’ve won it with them in 2012 when they lost on pens to Bayern. They were the best team in Europe that season and would’ve demolished Chelsea in the final.

The 5 0 loss against Barcelona broke him and he's never been the same.

Yes they were decent in the league generally but look at that teams quality.

He didn't sign players at RM. All Perez.

The CL success later all on Ancelotti, Benitez and mainly Zidane. The latter was able to manage without Perez interfering.

Can't take, Porto, the two years at Chelsea and Inter away though.

That was peak Mourinho and he was indeed the special one.

 

[VP89]

I think what Jose did with Porto, Inter and Chelsea puts him in higher regard for me.

 

[Siorac]

I think what Jose did with Porto, Inter and Chelsea puts him in higher regard for me.

Why Chelsea though? They were essentially the 2000s equivalent of City during his first stint there.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Why Chelsea though? They were essentially the 2000s equivalent of City during his first stint there.

To be fair unlike City, Chelsea had no culture or prior pedigree of winning trophies. Whereas City won the PL many times before Pep elevated them further. Both blank chequebook successes but I think there are some differences (such as City’s greater dominance).

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Pep's in such a unique position. No grind or origin story of merit; constantly plopped into elite teams with the greatest resources in their league. Under those conditions, the trophy haul is to be expected. How he gets his teams to play and the innovations he comes up with is another story entirely, however.

On trophies and the merits of what's been won, it's not close to being a wash, but in terms of what they've brought to the game at large and how their coaching in and of itself is regarded, Mourinho is stuck in an era, but Pep, like the true great ones constantly evolves and adapts - the game doesn't leave him behind. In fact, he dictates where the game shall go next, to this point in time. To have that about you for so many years is a very special quality no matter what you think of the cherry-picking he's managed to do or the financial/competitive advantages.

In terms of organic progression, warts and all, Pep can't beat Jose, but in terms of being a better coach, I don't think Jose can beat Pep.

Good post.

 

[kaiser1]

We have seen many young coaches trying to copy Pep style of football and model their tactics after him, Has there been anyone who has come out to copy Mourinhos style?

 

[WeePat]

To be fair unlike City, Chelsea had no culture or prior pedigree of winning trophies. Whereas City won the PL many times before Pep elevated them further. Both blank chequebook successes but I think there are some differences (such as City’s greater dominance).

You mean specifically titles right? Because Chelsea had won a handful of trophies in the 6-7 years directly preceding the takeover and Mourinho’s arrival.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

He spend over 150m in two seasons, and that was huge money at that time, especially for Inter.

His striker was from Genoa...

 

[RuudTom83]

Not a ridiculous argument at all, both are great managers and what Jose did with Porto and Inter in particular was very 'special'.

Sadly the news about Barcelona bribing the referees and the endless charges against City for FFP does harm Pep slightly (IMO)

But if you had to grade them or rank them, then sure Pep would be higher on the list than Jose.

 

[VP89]

Why Chelsea though? They were essentially the 2000s equivalent of City during his first stint there.

Chelsea weren't established winners when Jose came around

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

To be fair unlike City, Chelsea had no culture or prior pedigree of winning trophies. Whereas City won the PL many times before Pep elevated them further. Both blank chequebook successes but I think there are some differences (such as City’s greater dominance).

Chelsea spent more money in that time relative to the rest of the league than any team in history. They were spending 200 million a summer when teams around them were spending 20-30 million. City have spent plenty of money but by that time there were other big spenders, Chelsea, United etc, they still spent more but not proportionally more than Chelsea back then.

 

[MrEleson]

The 5 0 loss against Barcelona broke him and he's never been the same.

Broke him? He beat them in the copa del Rey final in the very same season and only narrowly lost out in the CL.

In his final season, he played Barca 6 times and went unbeaten.

He didn't sign players at RM. All Perez.

That’s not true, it’s actually the opposite. Perez gave Mourinho more control at the club than most other managers before him. He directly asked for Modric, Coentrao, Di Maria, Altintop, etc.

The CL success later all on Ancelotti, Benitez and mainly Zidane. The latter was able to manage without Perez interfering.

Considering the core of the team that won those later CLs were moulded by Mourinho, I disagree.

 

[The Hilton]

Quite interesting to think about actually. It's a lot closer than it looks on the surface - Mourinho in Pep's positions would have won plenty, although probably wouldn't have been quite so domestically dominant, but could have picked up an extra CL or two, whereas Pep would likely have really struggled at the less-resourced teams Mou has managed, but probably would have done well at the wealthier clubs once he'd replaced most of the squad.

 

[Siorac]

Chelsea weren't established winners when Jose came around

Eh. They finished second in 2003/04 and reached the CL semi-finals. Then proceeded to spend €160m on top of it, a LOT more than anyone else at the time.

 

[Idxomer]

His striker was from Genoa...

Militao scored 24 goals before Inter bought him and then they added Eto'o who just scored 30 goals in La Liga. That was some great work from Inter's recruitment team after losing Ibra. They also signed Sneijder, Lucio and Motta.

 

[Siorac]

Militao scored 24 goals before Inter bought him and then they added Eto'o who just scored 30 goals in La Liga. That was some great work from Inter's recruitment team after losing Ibra. They also signed Sneijder, Lucio and Motta.

And in addition to that, what the feck does it matter that he was signed from Genoa? Is Pep a miracle worker because his star attacking midfielder came from Wolfsburg? Did we expect Rooney to flop because he came from Everton?

 

[Fortitude]

Porto shouldn't be reduced to a CL run. They played fantastic football the season before on their way to victory in the Uefa Cup - it wasn't some one-season fluke, over a clear upward trajectory that started two years before. There were murmurs around a number of players in that squad and a fair number of them went on to play for top teams and forge out stellar careers of their own. They rode their luck and should have been out against us in the CL, but they shouldn't be reduced to some flash in the pan team, because they were nothing like that.

If Jose had continued to play that kind of football his whole career whilst picking up the trophies he did, he'd be seen in a more positive light than he is. His achievements with Porto really stood him in amazing stead to be bold enough to say he was a Special One.

 

[VP89]

Eh. They finished second in 2003/04 and reached the CL semi-finals. Then proceeded to spend €160m on top of it, a LOT more than anyone else at the time.

Yeah, so they weren't established winners. But its also about what he did during his time at Chelsea, he displaced us for a period which was phenomenal.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

His striker was from Genoa...

Diego Milito scored 24 goals in 08/09, one goal shy of the Serie A top goalscorer, who was Zlatan. Genoa finished 5th.

Essentially Mourinho replaced Zlatan and Adriano with Milito and Eto'o, a treble winner and top goalscorer of La Liga.

Again I'm not sure why there is this idea that Mourinho only manages scrubs and underdogs.

 

[Zehner]

Pep is clearly better at making teams consisting of world class players more than the sum of their parts than Mourinho. That much is clear as we've seen both coaches work with elite players and Guardiola produced far better results both in terms of achievements as well as overall performances.

Mourinho has made average teams punch above their weight. Pep has never done that but that doesn't mean he wouldn't improve them even more. We simply don't know. However, we can definitely assume and based on how incredibly well organized Pep's teams look and how great he is not only at implementing his ideas but also at the theoretic level, I have no doubt that he could do something like de Zerbi currently, for instance.

Mourinho's achievements are impressive and a bit underrated but Guardiola is another level.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Considering the core of the team that won those later CLs were moulded by Mourinho, I disagree.

That's not really true, I don't know why people say this.

The team that won the 3 CLs in a row was: Navas, Marcelo, Varane, Ramos, Carvajal, Casemiro, Kroos, Modric, Benzema, Bale/Isco, Ronaldo.

Marcelo, Ramos, Ronaldo, and Benzema were signed before Mourinho. Navas, Carvajal, Kroos, Bale, and Isco were signed after Mourinho.

That leaves Varane, Casemiro, and Modric. Varane was a Zidane signing (he was DoF). Casemiro was signed on loan to the B team in February 2013, just a few months before Mourinho's departure. he was not part of the first team until after Mourinho's departure, went on loan to Porto, etc.

We are just left with Modric, who joined in the summer of 2012 and was not part of the Mourinho RM team that actually won titles.

Of the players that were there before Mourinho: Ronaldo had already won the Balon D'Or, Sergio Ramos had won the World Cup and Euros, Benzema had already been successful in Ligue 1, and Marcelo was not highly rated by Mourinho.

 

[MrEleson]

You could question in some aspects if Pep is even better than Klopp.

Could Pep have done what Klopp has done at Liverpool with the utterly diabolical squad he inherited in 2015? That was one of the worst liverpool sides in history and is nothing short of a miracle that Klopp was able to transform them in such a short space of time. They went from a complete laughing stock to reaching back-to-back CL finals and fighting toe-to-toe with City in the league in the space of just 3 years. Klopp basically had to get almost all his signings spot on to achieve this.

In contrast, the core of the team Pep inherited was the key to his success. When he arrived in 2016, he already had all of KDB, Aguero, David Silva, Kompany, Fernandinho, Sterling, Stones, etc at his disposal.

If the roles were reversed could he have been as successful as Klopp?

I think overall, it’s much closer between him and Mourinho than people realise.

 

[MrEleson]

That's not really true, I don't know why people say this.

The team that won the 3 CLs in a row was: Navas, Marcelo, Varane, Ramos, Carvajal, Casemiro, Kroos, Modric, Benzema, Bale/Isco, Ronaldo.

Marcelo, Ramos, Ronaldo, and Benzema were signed before Mourinho. Navas, Carvajal, Kroos, Bale, and Isco were signed after Mourinho.

That leaves Varane, Casemiro, and Modric. Varane was a Zidane signing (he was DoF). Casemiro was signed on loan to the B team in February 2013, just a few months before Mourinho's departure. he was not part of the first team until after Mourinho's departure, went on loan to Porto, etc.

We are just left with Modric, who joined in the summer of 2012 and was not part of the Mourinho RM team that actually won titles.

Of the players that were there before Mourinho: Ronaldo had already won the Balon D'Or, Sergio Ramos had won the World Cup and Euros, Benzema had already been successful in Ligue 1, and Marcelo was not highly rated by Mourinho.

Fair enough, you’re spot on. However, he did help break the club’s early round exit curse in the competition with 3 successive semi-final finishes.

 

[Siorac]

Yeah, so they weren't established winners. But its also about what he did during his time at Chelsea, he displaced us for a period which was phenomenal.

Again, Ranieri's Chelsea already finished ahead of us and then they spent an astronomical amount of money on top of that.

And when we got our act together they couldn't live with us in a season where we had to give significant playing time to Kieran Richardson.

 

[VP89]

Again, Ranieri's Chelsea already finished ahead of us and then they spent an astronomical amount of money on top of that.

And when we got our act together they couldn't live with us in a season where we had to give significant playing time to Kieran Richardson.

Right but Mourinhos peak Chelsea is one of the best sides in PL history. He certainly transcended them.

 

[Siorac]

Right but Mourinhos peak Chelsea is one of the best sides in PL history. He certainly transcended them.

I don't disagree with that: the entire point is that the same is true for Guardiola's City side. There is just no way that Mourinho's achievement at Chelsea is somehow more impressive than Guardiola's at City - it's pretty much exactly the same. The only difference is that at the time there were no rules against a dodgy owner simply throwing massive amounts of money at a football team.

 

[caid]

No. Not ridiculous
Its too easy to dismiss Barcelona for the doping and bribing referee's and too easy to dismiss City. All thats left is a pretty good Munich stint (where they hired the same doctor so were probably doping). I feel like the only way to really justify a lot of his career is to make the argument that everyone else (including Mourinho) were doing the same. Which is plausible to be fair.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

Right but Mourinhos peak Chelsea is one of the best sides in PL history. He certainly transcended them.

But not as good as Pep's City and for not as long.
Pep's won 5 out of 6 leagues vs 2 out of 3.
Pep got to 100 points vs Jose's 95
Pep won 3 in a row vs Jose's 2 in a row
Pep has the largest winning margin of 19 points

The only one that Jose has is fewest goals conceded at 15, incredible achievement, but Man City have most goals in a season with 106 which is also very impressive.

 

[kaiser1]

But not as good as Pep's City and for not as long.
Pep's won 5 out of 6 leagues vs 2 out of 3.
Pep got to 100 points vs Jose's 95
Pep won 3 in a row vs Jose's 2 in a row
Pep has the largest winning margin of 19 points

The only one that Jose has is fewest goals conceded at 15, incredible achievement, but Man City have most goals in a season with 106 which is also very impressive.

We can add things like Man city
Most wins in a season 32
Longest league winning streak of 18games
Most goals scored in a season 106

 

[VP89]

I don't disagree with that: the entire point is that the same is true for Guardiola's City side. There is just no way that Mourinho's achievement at Chelsea is somehow more impressive than Guardiola's at City - it's pretty much exactly the same. The only difference is that at the time there were no rules against a dodgy owner simply throwing massive amounts of money at a football team.

But not as good as Pep's City and for not as long.
Pep's won 5 out of 6 leagues vs 2 out of 3.
Pep got to 100 points vs Jose's 95
Pep won 3 in a row vs Jose's 2 in a row
Pep has the largest winning margin of 19 points

The only one that Jose has is fewest goals conceded at 15, incredible achievement, but Man City have most goals in a season with 106 which is also very impressive.

I did not say that Mourinho's work at Chelsea in isolation is better than Pep's at City.

I praise Jose for being adaptable and transcending teams, with less £ relative to some other European teams in certain cases, and being a winner. Prime Mourinho wanted to take an underdog and get turn them into beasts. I don't think Pep has the stomach for that.

 

[adexkola]

I did not say that Mourinho's work at Chelsea in isolation is better than Pep's at City.

I praise Jose for being adaptable and transcending teams, with less £ relative to some other European teams in certain cases, and being a winner. Prime Mourinho wanted to take an underdog and get turn them into beasts. I don't think Pep has the stomach for that.

Yeah this isn't true

Chelsea were not underdogs the first time around
Jose wanted the job at Barcelona; he was ticked off when they gave it to Guardiola
He took the Inter job because it was the best offer on the table. And they were not underdogs (in Italy at least l)
After the treble he jumped to Real Madrid (not underdogs)
From Real Madrid, he went back to Chelsea (not underdogs)
Chelsea to United (not underdogs)
Post United, sure (Tottenham and Roma) but that's not because he loves underdog jobs. It's because no top club wants him today. And when they did, he went for those jobs.

Same for Pep. It's not that he doesn't have the "stomach" for underdog jobs. It's just, that given his ability (as rated by actual football experts who reside in clubs, not us armchair experts on the Internet), he has his pick of the lot. And there is no reason why any coach would select a lesser opportunity. Not even to convince strangers on the Internet they aren't a fraud

 

[Bucephalus74]

They are such different managers that it makes no sense to try and compare them. But if I'm going to . . .

Pep is Cruyff. Pep is Wenger. A vision of how football could or should be played. And if you want to give him a down grade because he's only had to do it with infinite resources, that's fair.

Jose is SAF. An incredible ability to squeeze every last little bit out of a squad. But SAF managed to do it for 20 years, while Jose tends to wear out his welcome after three years.

So I'll say Pep is better in his lane than Jose is in his.

 

[Siorac]

Prime Mourinho wanted to take an underdog and get turn them into beasts.

That might be true for someone like Klopp but certainly not Mourinho. I don't even understand where this comes from.

- He joined Chelsea at a time they outspent literally everyone in Europe. They were underdogs the same way City were underdogs when Guardiola took over.
- He then joined Inter at the immediate post-Calciopoli time in Italy: Juventus were just returning to Serie A, Milan were a mess. Inter were the Serie A holders when Mourinho took over, with an excellent squad that was fully expected to win again.
- Calling Real Madrid an underdog is like calling the US a minor military power.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

I did not say that Mourinho's work at Chelsea in isolation is better than Pep's at City.

I praise Jose for being adaptable and transcending teams, with less £ relative to some other European teams in certain cases, and being a winner. Prime Mourinho wanted to take an underdog and get turn them into beasts. I don't think Pep has the stomach for that.

That's fair but I'd say the only true underdogs were Porto in the CL which had some fortune - Scholes offside goal and goalkeeping error against us for example, but still a great achievement. Inter was also a great achievement but also not underdogs. They were the best team in Serie A, and a formidable team. It's fair to say they were underdogs against that great Barca team but hardly like Porto winning the Champions League.

For example, their pre-tournament odds were 12/1, which is equal to Liverpool in 2018/19 and considered less of an underdog than Real Madrid (14/1) in 2021/22 and Chelsea (18/1) in 2020/21.

His other teams - Chelsea were crazy spenders and expected to win the league. Real Madrid just broke the world record fee twice and were expected to be level with Barca and above everyone else. Chelsea second time expected to be among the top. United's spending was big when he was there, again expected to be top 2 at least, competing with City. Spurs would have been underdogs but he didn't do anything with them. Roma he's done well to win a trophy and get to another final although 6th, 6th and currently 5th in Serie A is par for the course at very best.

 

[VP89]

That might be true for someone like Klopp but certainly not Mourinho. I don't even understand where this comes from.

- He joined Chelsea at a time they outspent literally everyone in Europe. They were underdogs the same way City were underdogs when Guardiola took over.
- He then joined Inter at the immediate post-Calciopoli time in Italy: Juventus were just returning to Serie A, Milan were a mess. Inter were the Serie A holders when Mourinho took over, with an excellent squad that was fully expected to win again.
- Calling Real Madrid an underdog is like calling the US a minor military power.

He won the grandest prize in Europe with 2 teams that were underdogs. I never talked about Real Madrid.

Inter Milan and Porto had no right to go all the way really.

 

[Siorac]

He won the grandest prize in Europe with 2 teams that were underdogs. I never talked about Real Madrid.

Inter Milan and Porto had no right to go all the way really.

I still have no idea where this "Inter as underdogs" thing is coming from. They were only genuine underdogs compared to Pep's Barcelona but that's about it - but everyone were underdogs compared to that side at the time. Every bookmaker had them as favourites over Van Gaal's Bayern in the final. They have as many CL trophies as United. They were the dominant force in Italy at the time. They had players like Maicon, Samuel, Lucio, Zanetti, Cambiasso, Motta, Sneijder, Eto'o... it was a fecking fantastic team, not some plucky underdog.

 

[Statue of Limitations]

Who would you rather have managing your club?
That's your answer.

 

[kaiser1]

He won the grandest prize in Europe with 2 teams that were underdogs. I never talked about Real Madrid.

Inter Milan and Porto had no right to go all the way really.

Portos path was Man Utd after a legit goal was disallowed, Lyon , Deportivo and Monaco. This is the pathway you are claiming they had no right?

Inter 2010 was the strongest team in Italy and won back to back Serie A