Klopp took Mainz from fighting relegation to top 4 within 1 season. He then went to Dortmund when they were 13th and converted them to league champions.
Pep on the other hand has always had generational talent or walked in to clubs who were already title leaders. Please, lets not compare Pep's challenges to Klopp's.
Klopp never took Mainz to top 4 in Bundesliga, where does that information come from? That's not undermining what he did there as a coach but what Pep did with Barca B is comparable.
It took him 3 seasons to win with Dortmund and 4 with Liverpool. But that's precisely the point i've been making about Klopp, he prefers projects where he isn't expected to deliver immediately and where he has time to build the team and a style of play.
Pep is expected to not only win titles, but most especially get his teams to play a certain brand of football, which is why big clubs want him, not just because they want to win.
He did have generational talent but there's no doubting his achievement then, which was over 10 years ago now. That's not relevant when we're talking about his chops here and nor is it an achievement as impressive as what Klopp has done. Also since then Pep took a treble winning Bayern and regressed them in Europe. He took over City who were already Champions, spent what a billion(?) and achieved no more than the manager before him.
Be it 10 years ago or 20, the fact is that he did it. And what he did there gave him the reputation that made him sort after by every big club. Like for every job, he isn't going to remain at the bottom in order to prove a point to some people, what he did at Barca especially in his first year of coaching, meant that hee was only going to keep moving higher up.
How many clubs have retained their CL apart from Madrid, so technically, every club that wins it regresses the next season. I mean he only got them to the semi finals 3x.
As for his City career, well all you have to do is compare the number of titles he's won to that of the coaches that were there before him and the number of records he broke. He definitely achieved way more than they did.
You may not like Pep, but try to be honest in your assessments.
If Di Matteo had foundations that were credible, i.e. won the Bundasliga against the odds and had the win % Tuchel has had already in the EPL then sure, go ahead and compare the two. But Tuchel has actually done all that, and then when backed with a class side, has had Pep's number since. His impact with Chelsea is arguably just as impressive as Pep's with City on balance, and he's hardly been there enough time to buy a house.
So yeah, when you say there's only 1 manager close to him, I call BS. I think even if you gave Ancelotti 1bn to spend on a side that were already Champions when he would take over, he'd go on to win a couple titles and a cup. I reckon Conte could do it too, and Allegri. Klopp's obviously done it on a fraction of the budget. Tuchel can do it, and its quite funny he won the Champions League with less, beating Pep in the final to do it whilst holding a very impressive win % since he came to the league. Heck Ole after 1bn spend would probably win a couple of leagues, I'd even go that far. You're looking at £50m a pop at full backs, £50-60m squad option attackers and then a few world class inherited talent. Pep's a very very good manager, but to say only 1 manager is close to him is BS.
You must be confusing me with someone else.
With that been said, there's a reason Pep is considered better than all those coaches you mentioned in football world, it's not because he wins titles (all those coaches do too, maybe not as much), but because of the impact he's had in the way the game is played.
I mean all you need to do is listen to the way the players he's coached (some being amongst the greatest players ever in the positions) talk about him as a coach, even those that hate him as a person.
I'm pretty sure their opinions are worth way more than yours or mine or that of any other armchair expert on this topic.
