Have to say that’s a bad analogy, what did Sarri win at Napoli? Entire reason people rate the achievements of Klopp at Dortmund is he broke the Bayern monopoly & the CL achievements were brilliant on top of that. Sarri was coveted for playing brilliant football at Napoli not for being a winner and that’s played out on his post Napoli career, one EL with a strong Chelsea and one Serie A with a good Juve.
Who you rate the highest Pep, Klopp or Tuchel?
- Thread starter 432JuanMata
- Start date
Bayern weren't the juggernaut of today during that period ,he didn't break any monopoly Bayern lost the title to Stuttgart in Klopps first season with Dortmund and Dortmund had one brilliant run to Champions league final during his stint with Dortmund .
But to give credit where it's due ,Dortmund rise did actually raise the bar which led to Bayern appointing Guardiola who actually turned Bayern into this ruthless machine of domestic dominance which continues till date .
Can we please stop giving Guardiola credit for that? It was Heynckes who raised Bayern's level, and they did never reach the same heights in the league as they did in Heynckes' last season. Guardiola evolved their style of play, but he didn't break the records set under Heynckes, the results became a little bit worse, especially in the CL. Bayern looked more dominant in the league because of Dortmund's collapse, not because they improved.
If Dortmund would perform on their level of 2010/11, they would be really challenge Bayern.
I said domestic dominance and most Bayern supporters atleast on here seem to hold the same opinion and after Guardiola's exploits in PL I tend to agree with them that for sheer efficiency in the league Pep has no equals .
My point is that he didn't turn them into that machine, he just kept it running. I agree that he was very efficient at doing that, but he didn't have to build it.
So most Bayern supporters I know are happy he did that, but a lot of them question why he did not win the CL and would not give him the A grade for his time at Bayern because of that.
Klopp was at Dortmund a long time, I think you can definitely argue around when Wolfsburg won the title Bayern’s team wasn’t amazing but afterwards just look at them in the CL as a barometer of their level. The years Klopp beat them to the title they were good but not amazing under LVG but then they were phenomenal in 11/12 under Heynckes (Di Matteo’s shithouse win in final).
Can you say they aren’t the machine they are today when there hasn’t been anyone close to Dortmund under Klopp’s level to challenge them?
As for the bit about Pep, that does a big disservice to Jupp and also factor in the timing of the move. He had an offer from City but went to Bayern who had just won treble including winning the league by 25 points… then when the PL is at its least competitive (Leicester winning title) he joins City. No doubt he’s a top coach but Heynckes was the one who put Bayern onto a completely different level domestically and in Europe.
City are on a different level to Liverpool from a technical point of view. Their style of football demands technical perfection. Liverpool's less so. Obviously they are blessed with really good technical players too, but they can get away with being a bit less refined on the ball in general, due to the higher tempo they play at. More chaotic and attritional, which teams can't cope with. In short, Klopp's style can be replicated, or at least attempted to be replicated, by lesser teams. Guardiola's not so much. Pep's more sophisticated style comes at a greater financial cost.
It's apples and oranges really and purely down to preference. The guy who is more adaptable and is more likely to get good results with lesser sides and lesser resources as well as enjoy great success at the top level, or the guy who is even more dominant at the highest level, but demands huge financial outlay in order to achieve this. Personally, I don't think Klopp could make City any better than they currently are. Though he could have taken them to a similar level at a lower cost. I'd love to have seen how Pep would have got on at Liverpool back in 2015.
To manage United, I'd choose Pep. To manage Leicester, I'd take Klopp. For me, Tuchel is a very good manager but not at their level, so I haven't really touched on him at all.
It's apples and oranges really and purely down to preference. The guy who is more adaptable and is more likely to get good results with lesser sides and lesser resources as well as enjoy great success at the top level, or the guy who is even more dominant at the highest level, but demands huge financial outlay in order to achieve this. Personally, I don't think Klopp could make City any better than they currently are. Though he could have taken them to a similar level at a lower cost. I'd love to have seen how Pep would have got on at Liverpool back in 2015.
To manage United, I'd choose Pep. To manage Leicester, I'd take Klopp. For me, Tuchel is a very good manager but not at their level, so I haven't really touched on him at all.
Last edited:
You also have to give credit to LVG. He created the foundation for Heynckes to work on and implemented the basic style of play. As you said Bayern reached three CL finals in four years under them (2010, 2012, 2013), and during this time Dortmund/Klopp beat them to the league (2011 and 2012). So Bayern were already one of the strongest team in Europe and Dortmund could give them a run for their money, only that incredible form Dortmund had stopped Bayern from being domestically dominant already in 2010.
Pep did not even reach a single CL final after he took over.
Pep to Bayern was announced in the month of January when none of those things had happened , Klopp was actually with Liverpool when Leicester won the title .
Contrary to popular perception Guardiola didn't walk into perfect situation at City either , their squad required rebuild as well and he also needed to adapt and evolve which he did to succeed .
Look I am not underestimating the Job Klopp has done at Liverpool I rate him highly for that but Guardiola's influence on City can't be ignored either .
Last edited:
Pep leaving will be bad for us as he is the only one keeping Klopp in check. When he is gone Klopp can dominate easily as the Manchester City squad is nothing special. Manchester City winning doesn't really bother me too much.
Good point. Is there any chance Klopp maybe looking for another challenge soon?
Bayern at GW 20 were 12 points clear and had lost a single game, I think you can safely say they were favourites to win the title. I don't get why it would be relevant that they hadn't won the treble yet, it doesn't change the timing. Not sure why Klopp being at Pool matters either, he took over a very different team quality wise and during the season.
Maybe the reason popular perception is City were ready made for Guardiola is because it's about as concrete a fact as you find in a subjective sport...you can't say they needed a rebuild when the spine of his best City team were current players; Kompany, Silva, KDB, Aguero, Fernandinho. This isn't even factoring in there were even multiple sources saying Tixi was consulting Pep on signings whilst he was still at Bayern. Yes he's done well domestically wherever he's been and at no point have I said anything to the contrary about his domestic record at City but you can't be sitting there saying that Pep walked into a Bayern who weren't dominant and made them into a winning machine (Heynckes did that) and that he went in a City team needing a major rebuild (anyone who follows the PL even half-heartedly would laugh that off). Amazing coach, yes, but the criticism of him being incredibly selective with his moves and their timing is a valid one.
When you're asking the question about who is the best of 3 top managers (albeit currently I wouldn't put Tuchel in with Pep/Klopp) if one has managed lesser teams, had less financial support and still won everything domestically he could (not even going into Pool having won the CL already) and the other has never done that outside of a league favourite, I don't see how that wouldn't massively favour Klopp. Woodward messed up big time not being able to sign him.
Barcelona wasn't league favorite (finished 19points behind Madrid the season before) or CL favorite in Pep's first season, yet they ended up winning both at the end of the season.
The bolded part is a bunch of misinformation on Barca's situation in 2008. We had just come out of two seasons winning nothing, finishing third of Laliga behind Villareal and Madrid.
He didn't bring Henry to strenghten the side. He was already there and had an atrocious season. He bought Pique who was getting hardly any play time at United and made him into a world class defender. Same thing for Busquets, he benched World class player Yaya Toure and put 20 years old Busquets at the heart of his system.
Messi was obviously world class, but he was getting constantly injured. Pep made him change his diet and contributed to make him the player he is today. Iniesta was seen as a very talented player but no manager was able to put him in the best conditions to shine. Xavi was seen as world class but thanks to Pep he is in the conversation of Best midfielder ever, and i could go on for a lot of players...
Something that is often overlooked when discussing Pep, is that he is always able to take the best out of his players, and that is taken usually taken for granted, but its a real skill. When you look at Barça's 2008 squad with the power of hindsight, yes it can appear easy to take this world class team to the top. But even the most diehard Barça fan in 2008 wouldn't expect that team to become one of the best of all time. And i can't think of a lot of mangers who would be able to take them to the same heights Pep took them.
Yep I'd be very curious to see the thread here once Pep's appointment was announced.
I bet the comments will be a lot closer to "great news for Madrid" than "he'll sweep up look at that squad".
I’ve never encountered a fanbase as salty about Pep as the United fanbase. I don’t think even Madrid fans are as bad.
Pep is a fantastic manager but he would never have the balls to go to a team like Liverpool who were massively underperforming for years. At Barca he had probably the greatest Barca team ever. He then went to Bayern where he knew he was guaranteed titles, then to City where he knew he had supreme financial power to sign whoever he wants and already had quality at his disposal from day 1.
Klopp on the other hand went to Dortmund in basically a one team league, built a team with basically nothing, played the best football Dortmund has ever played, won 2 league titles and smashed Bayern in the german cup and took them to a CL final where they were in it till the final minute until they got Robben'd. Sure things went downhill but that's no suprise when you play that intense football and your best players go elsewhere.
He then went to Liverpool who kinda had been a joke for a long time bar that good season under Rodgers and with time and some smart signings he went to 2 CL finals won one and then won their first league title in 3 decades. Imo what he has done is far more impressive and for that reason I rate him the highest. They still have a shot at winning the league and challenge for the CL this season as well.
Klopp on the other hand went to Dortmund in basically a one team league, built a team with basically nothing, played the best football Dortmund has ever played, won 2 league titles and smashed Bayern in the german cup and took them to a CL final where they were in it till the final minute until they got Robben'd. Sure things went downhill but that's no suprise when you play that intense football and your best players go elsewhere.
He then went to Liverpool who kinda had been a joke for a long time bar that good season under Rodgers and with time and some smart signings he went to 2 CL finals won one and then won their first league title in 3 decades. Imo what he has done is far more impressive and for that reason I rate him the highest. They still have a shot at winning the league and challenge for the CL this season as well.
I just can't see any actual evidence that this is true, nor that there's any reason other than guesswork and a disliking of the guy to believe so.
Pep went to Barca who, for what it's worth, were definitely underperforming before he turned up. He was brilliant there, so he literally had his pick of several top teams. Great work gets you good job offers, nothing odd about that. Three years later he went to City because he was offered a great squad, huge budget, the chance to work with some friends who would give him more freedom than his previous jobs. Of course the best managers want to manage the best clubs... people who are at the top of their fields want to be employed by the best companies, This applies to any profession and in no way is an indicator that they don't have courage or aren't good enough.
Let's not forget that Klopp was sacked by Dortmund after a really bad spell. City wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole at the time, but Liverpool were a mid-table team back then so a recently fired Champions League manager was a perfect fit for them. When a big manager loses some reputation and gets sacked they have to take a slightly less desirable job so for you to paint it as Klopp going to Liverpool because he's brave is a bit strange, they were his best option at the time because he'd been fired and his stock was the lowest it had been in half a decade.
I'm sure Pep has the balls to go to a team like Liverpool. He would probably have the balls to go to a team like Leeds. The trouble with that idea is that there is absolutely no reason why he'd ever want to do that other than to prove people on the internet wrong (who have frankly made up their minds about him anyway).
Well you got me curious so i went to check, but didn't find any thread on this forum.
Though i found a thread from a french Barça Forum and the reactions were mixed. People were trusting Pep as manager because of his project but doubts were expressed on the players ability to carry it which is extremely ironic as it is in stark contrasts with what the people here are saying. I'll provide translation for some of these messages.
"Le recrutement me parait un peu leger (et cher) mais surtout que les cadres soit Puyol, Xavi et valdes ... j'ai bien peur pour la saison.Il compte peut etre trop sur Henry car franchement on le sent sur la fin physiquement.
Apres le truc des valeurs de taf blabla bla, on verra quoi
Perso, je suis pessimiste. "
Translation : Says that he doesn't like the recruitment which he finds too light and he is afraid that Puyol, Xavi and Valdes won't be able to carry the squad. Feels that Henry is physically washed and is overall pessimist on the season to come.
" Bref Pep fait un pari qui je l'espère sera payant. "
Translation: Pep took a gamble which i hope will pay off.
"Je vois pas non plus dans cette équipe un mec qui va te donner la rage de gagner et qui va se faire respecter par les autres.
Désolé mais Xavi, Iniesta c'est plat. Ils nous faut des joueurs qui ont de l'orgueil, la volonté de gagner et des leaders comme Eto'o et Deco. Puyol peut jouer ce rôle mais faudrait qu'il retrouve son niveau et sa confiance. "
Translation: I don't see in this team someone who will give you the winning mentality and get respected by others.
Sorry but Xavi, Iniesta are soft. We need players with pride and will to win, leaders like Deco and Eto'o (Eto'o was rumoured to leave Barça when Pep took over). Puyol can play this role but he should get back to his level and gain back his confidence.
Here is the link if you guys are interested and want to read more but you gotta be fluent in Baguette.
https://forum.fcbarcelonaclan.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=8262
I see the comments about the United fanbases general disregard for Pep and I am sure that’s more or less true.
I just can’t get over the disgusting nature of the City sports washing project and I find it hard to objectively judge his coaching.
Klopp is clearly a decent human being and he has vastly improved the levels of so many players at Liverpool that I really think he is on a different level in terms of his positive influence on the sport as well as his coaching. It’s hard to say that about a Liverpool coach but also undeniable.
Pep and AbuDhabi can feck off.
I just can’t get over the disgusting nature of the City sports washing project and I find it hard to objectively judge his coaching.
Klopp is clearly a decent human being and he has vastly improved the levels of so many players at Liverpool that I really think he is on a different level in terms of his positive influence on the sport as well as his coaching. It’s hard to say that about a Liverpool coach but also undeniable.
Pep and AbuDhabi can feck off.
Klopp by a mile distance
The bold part was literally debunked a few posts before this post, maybe debunked is a wrong word because he did had the greatest barca of all time there, except he made them that. Hindsight 20/20 i guess.
That said, I consider his Bayern stint a mere pass and his city stint a success.
The part of having balls is funny because if we were to go down this guesswork, we are also not sure if Klopp have the balls to go to a “must win or you are sacked” environment, which liverpool and dortmund are not. We are also not sure if SAF “have the balls” to venture out of the British isles, or indeed leave United to go elsewhere. See what I am getting at?
Ultimately, just like discussing the GOAT players, the GOAT managers candidates all have a * if we really want to nitpick. Even Sacchi and SAF can have that * easily, but the “have balls” argument is one of the weirdest I have seen around
If we go by Trophies won then it is Pep hands down.
If we gonna throw in other qualifying conditions then it is really personal and subjective. My personal choice would be Pep -> Klopp -> Tuchel.
Pep may be a cheque book manager, but if you give him the money he will make it work. There are other chequebook managers too but doesn't mean they can get it to work if you get them the players they want. And in terms of football, I think Pep's style is really unique and pleasing to the eye. To be fair, Klopp did spend quite a bit too.
If we gonna throw in other qualifying conditions then it is really personal and subjective. My personal choice would be Pep -> Klopp -> Tuchel.
Pep may be a cheque book manager, but if you give him the money he will make it work. There are other chequebook managers too but doesn't mean they can get it to work if you get them the players they want. And in terms of football, I think Pep's style is really unique and pleasing to the eye. To be fair, Klopp did spend quite a bit too.
I'm fairly certain Klopp was getting raved over and regarded as "better than Pep" long before the UCL win, even at the end of 18/19 when it looked like he was going to be empty handed again (when City were leading the title race and they were 3 down to Barca). Also Bayern didn't have close to the monopoly on the league as they do now, ofcourse impressive achievement never the less especially to repeat it but Wolfsburg, Bremen, Stuttgart and Dortmund themselves all won it over the previous decade.
The main point is there seems to be this lazy assumption that managers who do well with budgets or relative budgets would wipe the floor with anyone and everything if they get a big cheque. While Sarri didn't win anything at Napoli he created an excellent competitive team on a budget that makes Liverpool's look like PSG's, so if things are as linear as the person I quoted and many others make out, he would have created a monster team with our resources and pissed the league!
I'm not saying Klopp isn't a great manager and I can understand the arguments to favour him, but he's just as unproven at a win or you're fired job as what Pep is taking "proper challenges" and like I've said for all we know maybe he doesn't think he suits those type of jobs himself and is purposely dodging them.
Last edited:
Re: the bolded points:
I think you have made this point more articulately than I probably would ever do. If you look at Pep and Klopp, they seem to favour different challenges. A Klopp likes to build from the scratch, just give him 3-4 years and he will make your team an all conquering one. Just give him time because he knows what he’s doing and where he’s going. If you are in a hurry to win, maybe he’s not your man. I made the point about Abrahamovic wanting to bring Klopp to Chelsea but Klopp declined the offer which some posters here refuted as a false claim even though I remember that story was quite popular then because I was actively following Klopp’s movements before he rocked up at Anfield. An excerpt of the link below reads thus:
After guiding Borussia Dortmund to the Champions League final in 2013, Klopp was hot property in European football and Chelsea were without a permanent manager following Rafa Benitez’s turbulent stint as interim boss.
Mourinho eventually returned to Stamford Bridge for a second spell in charge that summer, but only after Abramovich reportedly sounded out the Dortmund gaffer’s representatives.
Klopp later revealed: “There were some English clubs that called and wanted to speak with me. But there was no reason to talk to them because... No chance.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...roman-abramovich-guardiola-klopp-23974694.amp
I genuinely didn't know about that for some reason, very interesting. Didn't Fergie also confirm he enquired about his availability but was knocked back?
If this theory is actually true I wonder where his next destination will be, maybe Milan if they're (like Liverpool in 2015) still struggling compared to their size?
I think the CL win cemented it but, I definitely think you could argue, depending on what you think is hardest, that what he had done was more impressive even pre CL win.
There’s definitely a question of how he’d do in those clubs although there really aren’t many left since the usual big names dropped away, City, Chelsea, PSG, Bayern, Real really is it. It seem like he might end up at Bayern one day so maybe then we’ll see.
That said Pep even acknowledged he would have been fired first season at City based on performance but obviously they’d planned everything around him and that was never going to happen so it’s not like anyone can say Pep comes in and guarantees success straight away. He needed two full summer windows of outrageous spending on top of an already ridiculous team.
I said this about Messi once and was attacked by a bunch of emotional Pep- haters who were totally unwilling to give Pep any credit for his development. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Messi would spend at least one third of every season injured under Rijkaard. Pep helped him greatly with fitness and of course changed his position.
City had the oldest squad in the league in Pep's first season especially in defence, the defenders were already in their 30's and weren't good at playing out from the back, they had to be replaced which is where the meme of Pep buying a lot of defenders started.
He didn't get fired because what he was trying to do and the kind of football he was trying to get them to play was already very visible, they created the highest number of goal occasions but had a very horrible convertion rate and behind they conceded a lot due to individual errors. But the signs of his style of play was already clearly there, which is also a very important factor in why teams want Pep.
They finished with the same point tally as United in his first season if i'm not mistaken right? Both teams spent a lot to strengthen their squad but the difference on the pitch between both teams was like night and day and that's purely down to coaching.
Feels like this has been done to death already, but Klopp edges it for transforming a bunch of perennial jokers into a top class team. The level in which he'd brought them from, was far greater than Pep with Barca, who were still great, just not dominant.
You won’t hear many objections to the idea Pep is better coach than any of the dross we’ve had! Yes of course you started to see progress, that’s the sign of a good coach. For me that need to spend immediately and aggressively is also why you don’t really see any other teams try to play Pep’s style of football, it only works if you have unlimited budget and have 2 top players (or more) for every role. Everyone isn’t trying to play like Pep anymore, every team is pressing and playing direct like Pool because you don’t have to spend as much and it’s more effective with lesser players.
It’s annoying that our rivals have 3 of the best coaches because it’s actually going be very interesting to see how football evolves in the next few years. There’s a clear correlation between the Hennes graduates and winning almost everything and Pep’s almost like the last of his order, the lone La Masia purist (even though he’s way less tiki-tala than he was) standing against the tide of direct, high press football. Even more so if RR works out for us.
Pep's Barca were pretty dominant. But I agree. Personally I don't think Klopp is the type who wouldn't thrive on a unlimited budget, I just think he's more of a romantic. I think bringing back the glory days for Liverpool meant more to him than playing FM with the oil clubs. He might still do that later, I dunno. What he's done at both Dortmund and Liverpool is truly impressive.
Absolutely. It's always a leap to extrapolate a manager/players current performance in a specific environment to expect a much improved/more dominant/more productive one in a different environment. Going by that logic, Pochettino who without spending anything maintained and improved Spurs must be some incredible manager who would wipe the floor with the rest given a real budget. But we know that isn't the case. Just like Pep hasn't proven he can manage all sorts of teams and truly build a club or team, we can't just assume Klopp would dominate at a richer more demanding club.
Klopp's Liverpool and their attack was nothing special until Salah and then Mané arrived to join Coutinho, 2 players that weren't just average players before they arrived.
But even with those 2, the team in general didn't win anything until he brought in VVD, Alisson and Fabinho.
There's a huge exaggeration about how Klopp has done it with just average players, that isn't true at all.
Pep (and his Barca team) really influenced how the game is played but the reason why teams can't play exactly that way (even teams bigger than City) is because it's really not as easy as it seems and that other coaches can't do what Pep does.
Having a big squad helps offcourse, but that doesn't guarantee a high technical and tactical level.
I've wondered this since this thread's inception: how do you objectively analyse a manager who has an unlimited budget and can gut and recreate his team on a whim compared to others?
Yes, Pep plays silky football, but, and it's a huge but, he is the only manager in the world who gets to play around with a squad that's almost fully interchangeable.
He has star turns, but what other squad in the world can rotate out so many players and not miss them? This isn't like PSG's mega 1st team on paper, or Madrid at their peak, or even Barcelona when Pep was there. It's something else entirely, and it's no wonder that they can rack up the points tallies they do and power on when other sides suffer for the loss of first-teamers or when their key players are fatigued.
Pep switches out players and carries on unabated.
His measure cannot be the league; it has to be the CL, where the rotation and strength of the entire squad does not give him an intrinsic advantage from the outset.
Yes, Pep plays silky football, but, and it's a huge but, he is the only manager in the world who gets to play around with a squad that's almost fully interchangeable.
He has star turns, but what other squad in the world can rotate out so many players and not miss them? This isn't like PSG's mega 1st team on paper, or Madrid at their peak, or even Barcelona when Pep was there. It's something else entirely, and it's no wonder that they can rack up the points tallies they do and power on when other sides suffer for the loss of first-teamers or when their key players are fatigued.
Pep switches out players and carries on unabated.
His measure cannot be the league; it has to be the CL, where the rotation and strength of the entire squad does not give him an intrinsic advantage from the outset.
Klopp had around 5-6 months without Mane and Salah, so are you saying Liverpool team with Lallana, Benteke, Ibe, injured Sturridge was nothing special under Klopp? Well yes, they weren't special but still scored 2nd most goals since Klopp took over that season, only 3 goals less than Spurs with Kane, Eriksen, Alli in the attack.
until Pep goes to a Arsenal or Milan and turn their fortunes around with available funds, its Klopp all day of the week for me
Klopp is obviously better than Pep.
I think you're going too far down the Pep-ite route here. He is a great coach but if you think the biggest differentiator isn't financial firepower I don't really know what to say. This goes for any coach in history, Pep is just the first to be unequivocally the biggest and most aggressive spender there has ever been and that is why it is puzzling how he's underperformed (and it has been arguably his decisions which cost them) in the CL when it is more about one off tactics, managing a single or two legged game and less about the sheer power and depth of a squad. He'll win it eventually with City but he should have won it at least once already when you look at who has knocked them out & the collapse of the continental competition. This is prime time for PL clubs to be cleaning up in Europe.
Sorry but what you just did in this whole post is judge the finished (or almost finished) products City players have become, not what they were before playing under Pep.
Their players are interchangeable because of the system. The players definitely aren't equally as good as each other and it often shows despite having a very distinct and functional system in place, but the system maximizes every players potential.
The main star of the City team is Pep and his system.
Only Zidane if i'm not mistaken has won 3 CL as a coach, other coaches who have also coached great teams haven't won more than 2 just like Pep (who has reached more semi finals than any other coach), so i don't see how he's underperforming compared to anyone else.
I thought the PL was the best and most competitive league in the world, why shouldn't he be also judged by what he's achieving there.
Almost every manager (including Zidane who's won the CL 3x) have said it's more difficult to win the league than to win the CL because winning the league requires consistency, while the CL likes any other cup competition requires various parameters (goal difference and away goal rule, luck, etc). It definitely just isn't about tactics.
And concerning the fact that financial firepower is the biggest differentiator, why hasn't United been able to compete then? Why isn't Everton competing with the big 4 ?
Last edited: