Is it fair to worship Guardiola at this point? | The Ball Did It

[Haddock]

Only three of their starting line-up today weren't there last season.

Because today's line-up is all that matters?

The kind of squad depth Guardiola has at his disposal is incredible. Since he took over he has bought: three centre midfielders, two wide attackers, two attacking midfielders, two strikers, two first choice goalkeepers, a £50 mn centre half, and three fullbacks. One or two of those players aren't at the club but the point stands.

One has to give him some credit. At least he isn't wasting money like he did with Chygrynskiy and Hleb.

 

[Footyislife]

Pep is currently a much better manager than Mourinho. Both have spent tons at their new clubs, but Pep has put out a much better product on the field.

Jose can say we play expansive football the reality is we still play with 5 up front and 5 behind the ball. We'll score 3+ goals against the bad teams while Pep will have his team score 5+. We'll draw against better teams while Pep will win some and lose others, still coming out ahead on point total.

Jose loves reminding us that this is a new PL and winning is difficult. That just means you have to take risks, be brave, and play with imagination to win. Which is what SAF had us do for years and years. Mourinho is guaranteed to win 1/4 years with his pragmatism, but is that what we are satisfied with? I'm not. I want a dominant team that wins it 3/4 yrs. Mourinho has never built dominance, whereas Pep has.

5 yrs on, we have yet to replace SAF with a manager who shared his philosophy. Seems so obvious that you replace like with like to continue a successful dynasty. Given a choice 2 yrs ago most of us would have chosen Pep over Mourinho in a heartbeat. Let's not pretend to call the grapes sour just because we can't have them.

 

[salford_]

chequebook manager? yes. half a billion in a year is utterly insane. good manager aswell though, but they started last year like this and fell away.

I think the statements that winning the league with Barca at that time was "easy" are kinda correct, as was winning the league with Bayern. Last year proved he has loads of flaws. like many.
Still dont think they will win it, defence still suspect.

I just hate the arrogance of many city fans about how they're far and away the best in the league, so untrue

 

[padr81]

Pep is currently a much better manager than Mourinho. Both have spent tons to reach success. But Pep puts a much better product on the field.

Jose can say we play expansive football the reality is we still play with 5 up front and 5 behind the ball. We'll score 3+ goals against the bad teams while Pep will have his team score 5+. We'll draw against better teams while Pep will win some and lose others, still coming out ahead on point total.

Jose loves reminding us that this is a new PL and winning is difficult. That just means you have to take risks, be brave, and play with imagination to win. Which is what SAF had us do for years and years. Mourinho is guaranteed to win 1/4 years with his pragmatism, but is that what we are satisfied with? I'm not. I want a dominant team that wins it 3/4 yrs. Mourinho has never built dominance, whereas Pep has. Give the choice 2 yrs ago most of us would have chosen Pep over Mourinho in a heartbeat. Let's not pretend to call the grapes sour just because we can't have them.

He's not a much better manager nor is he a much worse manager. They are both top managers with different strengths and flaws in different aspects of the game. They are two of the best in the world. Only the styles are different.

 

[salford_]

He's not a much better manager nor is he a much worse manager. They are both top managers with different strengths and flaws in different aspects of the game. They are two of the best in the world. Only the styles are different.

both CV's are excellent on paper. I believe Mourinho's achievements are better.

ie. winning the CL with Porto is a far greater achivement than winning it with Barca or winning the title with them or Bayern.
Went to Inter and won the treble.
Went to Chelsea and won the league 2 yrs running and his first Chelsea side is one of the best in the EPL era.

However, I also think Mourinho is a far bigger hypocrite and very much a brat when his teams lose

 

[cyberman]

Jose being brought into every page of Peps thread is just as tedious as Ronaldo v Messi

 

[padr81]

both CV's are excellent on paper. I believe Mourinho's achievements are better.

ie. winning the CL with Porto is a far greater achivement than winning it with Barca or winning the title with them or Bayern.
Went to Inter and won the treble.
Went to Chelsea and won the league 2 yrs running and his first Chelsea side is one of the best in the EPL era.

However, I also think Mourinho is a far bigger hypocrite and very much a brat when his teams lose

I was defending Jose from the OP. His Porto achievement of course is one of the greatest of all time. I just had to call out that over the top statement that Pep is a far better manager.

 

[ivaldo]

Pep is currently a much better manager than Mourinho. Both have spent tons at their new clubs, but Pep has put out a much better product on the field.

Jose can say we play expansive football the reality is we still play with 5 up front and 5 behind the ball. We'll score 3+ goals against the bad teams while Pep will have his team score 5+. We'll draw against better teams while Pep will win some and lose others, still coming out ahead on point total.

Jose loves reminding us that this is a new PL and winning is difficult. That just means you have to take risks, be brave, and play with imagination to win. Which is what SAF had us do for years and years. Mourinho is guaranteed to win 1/4 years with his pragmatism, but is that what we are satisfied with? I'm not. I want a dominant team that wins it 3/4 yrs. Mourinho has never built dominance, whereas Pep has.

5 yrs on, we have yet to replace SAF with a manager who shared his philosophy. Seems so obvious that you replace like with like to continue a successful dynasty. Given a choice 2 yrs ago most of us would have chosen Pep over Mourinho in a heartbeat. Let's not pretend to call the grapes sour just because we can't have them.

The CVs tell a different story. Pep can only compete when he has a stable of superstars at his disposal. If he doesn't he needs to spend half a billion pounds to get his team competing. Jose on the other hand has proven he has the ability to adapt to what he has at his disposal. He's the smarter manager and the better coach.

 

[saivet]

Interested to see how he lines up against a decent defensive side. The line ups I've seen from City have looked extremely attacking, which I think would fine themselves in problems.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Pep is currently a much better manager than Mourinho. Both have spent tons at their new clubs, but Pep has put out a much better product on the field.

Jose can say we play expansive football the reality is we still play with 5 up front and 5 behind the ball. We'll score 3+ goals against the bad teams while Pep will have his team score 5+. We'll draw against better teams while Pep will win some and lose others, still coming out ahead on point total.

Jose loves reminding us that this is a new PL and winning is difficult. That just means you have to take risks, be brave, and play with imagination to win. Which is what SAF had us do for years and years. Mourinho is guaranteed to win 1/4 years with his pragmatism, but is that what we are satisfied with? I'm not. I want a dominant team that wins it 3/4 yrs. Mourinho has never built dominance, whereas Pep has.

5 yrs on, we have yet to replace SAF with a manager who shared his philosophy. Seems so obvious that you replace like with like to continue a successful dynasty. Given a choice 2 yrs ago most of us would have chosen Pep over Mourinho in a heartbeat. Let's not pretend to call the grapes sour just because we can't have them.

While some points are partly valid, Mourinho has never built dominance?

Inter treble? 1st Chelsea stint where they pissed on the league twice? Record breaking point total with Real Madrid ending Pep's Barcelona's reign of 3 straight La Liga titles? If that's not dominance, then no manager has ever built dominance.

 

[padr81]

The CVs tell a different story. Pep can only compete when he has a stable of superstars at his disposal. If he doesn't he needs to spend half a billion pounds to get his team competing. Jose on the other hand has proven he has the ability to adapt to what he has at his disposal. He's the smarter manager and the better coach.

Because of a CL with Porto 15 seasons ago? Other then that he's had one of the best squads in Europe every season he's managed just like Pep. Not knocking the guy at all but its still true. He's a fantastic manager who like Pep has his flaws. I think as Cyberman said like the Messi/Ronaldo debate, there is no right answer only opinions and they will be divided. Maybe there should be a Pep vs Jose thread to keep this one clean.

 

[padr81]

While some points are partly valid, Mourinho has never built dominance?

Inter treble? 1st Chelsea stint where they pissed on the league twice? Record breaking point total with Real Madrid ending Pep's Barcelona's reign of 3 straight La Liga titles? If that's not dominance, then no manager has ever built dominance.

The first 2 were dominance, the Real Madrid one is not dominance, he got beat twice and won once at Madrid. Had he bested Barca there and ended their dominance there would be no question over it. But he only did it once after taking over a team that scored 96 points and over 100 goals under Pellegrini. He didn't break Barca's dominance, he left after finishing 15 points behind them. Possibly the furthest they ever finished behind them, at least in my life time.

 

[ivaldo]

Because of a CL with Porto 15 seasons ago? Other then that he's had one of the best squads in Europe every season he's managed just like Pep. Not knocking the guy at all but its still true. He's a fantastic manager who like Pep has his flaws. I think as Cyberman said like the Messi/Ronaldo debate, there is no right answer only opinions and they will be divided. Maybe there should be a Pep vs Jose thread to keep this one clean.

Porto were massive underdogs, Chelsea was a complete build from the bottom job, Inter were no where near the elite clubs in Europe, Real were not on Barcas level when he took over and we had been lagging way behind the pace after Fergie retired.

Now compare that to Pep. At Barca he inherited possibly the best collective group of players in half a century, Bayern had just won the treble and for many City had the best squad in the league. The situations aren't even remotely comparable.

One manager has to have the best squad to compete for honours, the other clearly does not.

 

[Josep Dowling]

Pep is currently a much better manager than Mourinho. Both have spent tons at their new clubs, but Pep has put out a much better product on the field.

Jose can say we play expansive football the reality is we still play with 5 up front and 5 behind the ball. We'll score 3+ goals against the bad teams while Pep will have his team score 5+. We'll draw against better teams while Pep will win some and lose others, still coming out ahead on point total.

Jose loves reminding us that this is a new PL and winning is difficult. That just means you have to take risks, be brave, and play with imagination to win. Which is what SAF had us do for years and years. Mourinho is guaranteed to win 1/4 years with his pragmatism, but is that what we are satisfied with? I'm not. I want a dominant team that wins it 3/4 yrs. Mourinho has never built dominance, whereas Pep has.

5 yrs on, we have yet to replace SAF with a manager who shared his philosophy. Seems so obvious that you replace like with like to continue a successful dynasty. Given a choice 2 yrs ago most of us would have chosen Pep over Mourinho in a heartbeat. Let's not pretend to call the grapes sour just because we can't have them.

Pep has one good result today and you conclude like the season is already over.

 

[The holy trinity 68]

Pep is currently a much better manager than Mourinho. Both have spent tons at their new clubs, but Pep has put out a much better product on the field.

Jose can say we play expansive football the reality is we still play with 5 up front and 5 behind the ball. We'll score 3+ goals against the bad teams while Pep will have his team score 5+. We'll draw against better teams while Pep will win some and lose others, still coming out ahead on point total.

Jose loves reminding us that this is a new PL and winning is difficult. That just means you have to take risks, be brave, and play with imagination to win. Which is what SAF had us do for years and years. Mourinho is guaranteed to win 1/4 years with his pragmatism, but is that what we are satisfied with? I'm not. I want a dominant team that wins it 3/4 yrs. Mourinho has never built dominance, whereas Pep has.

5 yrs on, we have yet to replace SAF with a manager who shared his philosophy. Seems so obvious that you replace like with like to continue a successful dynasty. Given a choice 2 yrs ago most of us would have chosen Pep over Mourinho in a heartbeat. Let's not pretend to call the grapes sour just because we can't have them.

The first bolded part is nonsense. Pep has spent more money at City than Mourinho at United. Pep also inherited a better team and has won nothing. Mourinho has won 2 trophies, 3 if you include the community shield but I won't include that.

The second bolded part sounds to me like you are saying we should have replaced Sir Alex with Pep because they are similar in styles. They are no where near similar.

And I know a lot of people who would have preferred Mourinho. The man oozes success. Pep looked like he was about to crack under the pressure last season.

 

[padr81]

Porto were massive underdogs, Chelsea was a complete build from the bottom job, Inter were no where near the elite clubs in Europe, Real were not on Barcas level when he took over and we had been lagging way behind the pace after Fergus retired.

Now compare that to Pep. At Barca he inherited possibly the best collective group of players in half a century, Bayern had just won the treble and for many City had the best squad in the league. The situations aren't even remotely comparable.

One manager has to have the best squad to compete for honours, the other clearly does not.

This Inter myth is one I can't fathom, they were 10/1 to win the CL that season. Behind Barca, United, Chelsea and even odds with Liverpool. They sacked Mancini for not being able to win the CL. Brought in Jose for exactly that purpose and fair play to him he did it.
Inter were the exact same odds to win when they did as City were before a ball was kicked this season (also 5th favorites). Would Pep winning the CL with City be seen as a Jose like miracle styled feat ala Inters win?
Inter were easily one of the top squads in Europe, they were lower odds than Real to win it for Christ sake.

I said his Chelsea team built dominance and praised him for it so I don't see why that comes up.

Real lost out to Barca by 3 points (99 to 96) the season before he took over, so yes they were close. They were easily the 2nd best side in Europe behind Barca.
He done worse than Pellegrini is his first season but unlike Pellegrini was given a stay of execution. He won (great win and well deserved), then Barca bounced back and hammered him right out of Spain.
Your talking like he had some piss poor Madrid to topple a mighty giant. He had a team of Casillas, Ronaldo, Di Maria, Alonso, Benzema, Ozil, Pepe, Marcelo, Higuain, Kaka and Ramos.

He did brilliantly at Chelsea on his return, but then finished 10th. When a team finsihes 3rd, 1st, 10th, 1st. That 10th is a huge failure on the managers part. Two firsts and a 10th, in the middle means the 10th is a huge blemish on his CV.
He got the boot, moved to United, finished 6th with a £500m team. Another blemish on his CV.

He came to a United squad who finished level on points with City and lost out by 1 goal on goal difference, like Pep spent a fortune and like Pep failed in his first season in Manchester.
Look at the predictions thread last season from after you signed Pogba.
Heres a list of pundits picking who they fancied http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37040156
18 backing City and Pep, 12 backing Jose and United. While many said City had the best squad, many said United had and many said the best manager two. They came 6th.

I wish you guys would stop changing history.

Jose has huge question marks over him like Pep has right now...
Defending champions - 10th, £500m squad at United - 6th, that is his last two seasons.

Pep has huge questions over him too, Failed to win the CL at Bayern, Took over at City £500m squad - 3rd.

 

[Janson]

Pep is currently a much better manager than Mourinho. Both have spent tons at their new clubs, but Pep has put out a much better product on the field.

Jose can say we play expansive football the reality is we still play with 5 up front and 5 behind the ball. We'll score 3+ goals against the bad teams while Pep will have his team score 5+. We'll draw against better teams while Pep will win some and lose others, still coming out ahead on point total.

Jose loves reminding us that this is a new PL and winning is difficult. That just means you have to take risks, be brave, and play with imagination to win. Which is what SAF had us do for years and years. Mourinho is guaranteed to win 1/4 years with his pragmatism, but is that what we are satisfied with? I'm not. I want a dominant team that wins it 3/4 yrs. Mourinho has never built dominance, whereas Pep has.

5 yrs on, we have yet to replace SAF with a manager who shared his philosophy. Seems so obvious that you replace like with like to continue a successful dynasty. Given a choice 2 yrs ago most of us would have chosen Pep over Mourinho in a heartbeat. Let's not pretend to call the grapes sour just because we can't have them.

What Pep has done at his former clubs is not of much relevance to the situation here given the circumstances(the teams he had). Do you honestly believe he will establish some kind of dominance over several years with City?

There are several teams and top managers he will be up against, unlike in his former leagues. And City isn't Barca or Bayern to always attract the best of the best. They could even lose some of their best players to Real/Barca if they become that good. You don't think De Bruyne would be tempted to leave if they are after him?

Pep might win the league once or twice, it's possible, and even the CL with some luck. But there's no way City will stay at the top for long, assuming they even get there in the first place. Before you get carried away with Peps future dominance, you have to think about the fact that there is a possibility he could get sacked if he doesn't win the league this season. They do have the best squad in the league after all, so it's not an unrealistic scenario at all. Other managers have been fired for less.

 

[Laurentiu amt]

What Pep has done at his former clubs is not of much relevance to the situation here given the circumstances(the teams he had). Do you honestly believe he will establish some kind of dominance over several years with City?

There are several teams and top managers he will be up against, unlike in his former leagues. And City isn't Barca or Bayern to always attract the best of the best. They could even lose some of their best players to Real/Barca if they become that good. You don't think De Bruyne would be tempted to leave if they are after him?

Pep might win the league once or twice, it's possible, and even the CL with some luck. But there's no way City will stay at the top for long, assuming they even get there in the first place. Before you get carried away with Peps future dominance, you have to think about the fact that there is a possibility he could get sacked if he doesn't win the league this season. They do have the best squad in the league after all, so it's not an unrealistic scenario at all. Other managers have been fired for less.

You can bet your house he'll get sacked if they don't win the title, but they will win it most likely. Their squad depth is far too good, no other team comes even close to that.

Their only concern is that defense and the lack of a rock solid defensive CM, or a decent keeper btw. But they're favorites, by far. I just want to see what happens when they meet a very strong side that might murder their midfield, like us or Chelsea. Remember, they do have very good attacking players, but players that never played a high press system until now and players that are mostly useless without the ball.

Usually the EPL is decided by big clubs beating the little ones. This year I think the EPL will be decided by the results in derbies, that's how much of a difference between the top 3-5 and the rest is.

 

[marktan]

He came to a United squad who finished level on points with City and lost out by 1 goal on goal difference, like Pep spent a fortune and like Pep failed in his first season in Manchester.

I don't view last season as a failure, winning the EL and minor cup imo is a solid season for me and more successful than coming top 4. Of course the aim is to win the league, but it's a very competitive league now and not winning it but doing well elsewhere isn't a failure. If he came 6th and didn't win EL then I'd say it wasn't a successful season.

The point you make about Inter isn't a myth at all, the reason he's praised so much is precisely the same reason Pep is criticised - winning the CL is hard. Pep had a better team with Bayern but failed 3 seasons in a row - whereas Mourinho faced one of the best Barcelona sides ever over 2 legs and beat them en route. Using the 10/1 statistic is very misleading - part of the reason they were at better odds is due to them signing Mourinho and the signings he made. For a comparison of how Inter fared previously - they went out in the round of 16 in the previous 2 seasons of the CL.

Real I do agree with you though that he had a solid squad, I guess where the comparisons come from is that that Madrid side isn't as good as the current peak one, whereas that Barca side was better than this current one. Still not a huge mismatch for either given they only face each other twice over a season.

That said, they do both have their positives and negatives, but your post is exaggerating Mourinho's. Last season at United isn't a blemish at all - it's a positive one for me. His last stint at Chelsea is a blemish but he didn't finish 10th with them as you state - that's just where he got sacked. He would've most likely finished higher had he lasted the full season. Both managers are very good but Mourinho's easily had the better career thus far, mostly due to him being at it longer than Pep and depth of his success vs Pep's rather limited scope of success thus far (Bayern and Barca). Pep I think will end up with a very successful career overall though as I think he'll do well at City and then probably take on a team like PSG. Just at this point Mourinho's done more.

 

[ivaldo]

This Inter myth is one I can't fathom, they were 10/1 to win the CL that season. Behind Barca, United, Chelsea and even odds with Liverpool. They sacked Mancini for not being able to win the CL. Brought in Jose for exactly that purpose and fair play to him he did it.
Inter were the exact same odds to win when they did as City were before a ball was kicked this season (also 5th favorites). Would Pep winning the CL with City be seen as a Jose like miracle styled feat ala Inters win?
Inter were easily one of the top squads in Europe, they were lower odds than Real to win it for Christ sake.

I said his Chelsea team built dominance and praised him for it so I don't see why that comes up.

Real lost out to Barca by 3 points (99 to 96) the season before he took over, so yes they were close. They were easily the 2nd best side in Europe behind Barca.
He done worse than Pellegrini is his first season but unlike Pellegrini was given a stay of execution. He won (great win and well deserved), then Barca bounced back and hammered him right out of Spain.
Your talking like he had some piss poor Madrid to topple a mighty giant. He had a team of Casillas, Ronaldo, Di Maria, Alonso, Benzema, Ozil, Pepe, Marcelo, Higuain, Kaka and Ramos.

He did brilliantly at Chelsea on his return, but then finished 10th. When a team finsihes 3rd, 1st, 10th, 1st. That 10th is a huge failure on the managers part. Two firsts and a 10th, in the middle means the 10th is a huge blemish on his CV.
He got the boot, moved to United, finished 6th with a £500m team. Another blemish on his CV.

He came to a United squad who finished level on points with City and lost out by 1 goal on goal difference, like Pep spent a fortune and like Pep failed in his first season in Manchester.
Look at the predictions thread last season from after you signed Pogba.
Heres a list of pundits picking who they fancied http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37040156
18 backing City and Pep, 12 backing Jose and United. While many said City had the best squad, many said United had and many said the best manager two. They came 6th.

I wish you guys would stop changing history.

Jose has huge question marks over him like Pep has right now...
Defending champions - 10th, £500m squad at United - 6th, that is his last two seasons.

Pep has huge questions over him too, Failed to win the CL at Bayern, Took over at City £500m squad - 3rd.

How do you equate being 10/1 as anything but an underdog? I can't remember saying it was a miracle by any stretch of the imagination, let's not start that game or I won't bother. Chelsea, Barca and United were significantly better teams than Inter mate, it would be foolish to suggest otherwise.

So you wouldn't consider City winning the champions league as a massive achievement, you wouldn't consider them massive underdogs? Seriously?

Again, where did I say they had a piss poor squad? Drop the strawman arguments. Barca had one of the best set of players in the history of the game. That's the difference.

You're trying to make out I'm saying Jose was managing a pile of shit during each of his major successes. I'm simply stating his sides were underdogs, or are you going to rewrite history and suggest otherwise?

Let's have a look at the teams pep managed.

Barcelona - best side in the world
Munich - just won the treble
City - best squad in the league

It's irrefutable.

 

[Janson]

While some points are partly valid, Mourinho has never built dominance?

Inter treble? 1st Chelsea stint where they pissed on the league twice? Record breaking point total with Real Madrid ending Pep's Barcelona's reign of 3 straight La Liga titles? If that's not dominance, then no manager has ever built dominance.

I think he meant dominance over several years while at the same club. Although I think he could have possibly done that, had he not have had such a trigger happy boss in RA. I mean, when he got fired the first time, it was on the back of two PL titles if I remember correctly. And only like a couple of months into the season at the slightest sign of struggle.

 

[Womp]

Don't know why people are responding to that footyislife guy. It's a known fact he's one of those weird Pep enthusiasts who thinks the value of a win is determined by the football played to achieve it.

I went past the post as soon as I saw 'much better manager'

 

[The holy trinity 68]

To be fair on Pep, for comparison you can't really include Mourinho's spell at Inter Milan too much. Inter won the league 3 years in a row before Mourinho became their manager. He did win the Champions league though and faced a brilliant Barcelona team.

 

[ivaldo]

To be fair on Pep, for comparison you can't really include Mourinho's spell at Inter Milan too much. Inter won the league 3 years in a row before Mourinho became their manager. He did win the Champions league though and faced a brilliant Barcelona team.

That's the very reason why you count it.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

The first 2 were dominance, the Real Madrid one is not dominance, he got beat twice and won once at Madrid. Had he bested Barca there and ended their dominance there would be no question over it. But he only did it once after taking over a team that scored 96 points and over 100 goals under Pellegrini. He didn't break Barca's dominance, he left after finishing 15 points behind them. Possibly the furthest they ever finished behind them, at least in my life time.

Beating Barcelona once and doing it in dominant fashion is an achievement in itself imo. Though his last season was pitiful.

I think he ended Barcelona's mental advantage over Real Madrid though and deserves credit.

 

[Janson]

You can bet your house he'll get sacked if they don't win the title, but they will win it most likely. Their squad depth is far too good, no other team comes even close to that.

Their only concern is that defense and the lack of a rock solid defensive CM, or a decent keeper btw. But they're favorites, by far. I just want to see what happens when they meet a very strong side that might murder their midfield, like us or Chelsea. Remember, they do have very good attacking players, but players that never played a high press system until now and players that are mostly useless without the ball.

Usually the EPL is decided by big clubs beating the little ones. This year I think the EPL will be decided by the results in derbies, that's how much of a difference between the top 3-5 and the rest is.

Yeah, they are the favorites no doubt. But there are still scenarios which can mean they loose out. If Chelsea go out of the CL and other cups early, they could focus on the league like last year. Spurs also have an outside chance as well. And there's also always the chance Pep could screw things up himself.

We have Zlatan probably coming back in Jan, and Griezmann is also possible we could get in Jan. But I still think the most crucial thing for us to have a shot, is to have Martial and Rashford delivering and upping their game quite a bit compared to last season. And if Mikhi can get back to performing consistently like his Dortmund days, then it's possible for sure.

I agree with the rest of your points. They will always be vulnerable to counters because of the way they play. If you manage to get by their initial press, it basically becomes wide open to run in behind. And they always play the same way, which can make it easier for the good managers to set up against.

We will probably still sit back against them and let them have possession like last year, but the difference is, now we have a better chance of scoring on counters with Lukaku instead of Zlatan.

 

[padr81]

How do you equate being 10/1 as anything but an underdog? I can't remember saying it was a miracle by any stretch of the imagination, let's not start that game or I won't bother. Chelsea, Barca and United were significantly better teams than Inter mate, it would be foolish to suggest otherwise.

So you wouldn't consider City winning the champions league as a massive achievement, you wouldn't consider them massive underdogs? Seriously?

Again, where did I say they had a piss poor squad? Drop the strawman arguments. Barca had one of the best set of players in the history of the game. That's the difference.

You're trying to make out I'm saying Jose was managing a pile of shit during each of his major successes. I'm simply stating his sides were underdogs, or are you going to rewrite history and suggest otherwise?

Let's have a look at the teams pep managed.

Barcelona - best side in the world
Munich - just won the treble
City - best squad in the league

It's irrefutable.

City would be dark horses but it wouldn't be a major upset if they did and to do it they would have to go up against Real, Barca, Bayern, Juve, PSG and Atletico.

Teams more fancied than Inter, were admittedly peak Barca (who Jose out thought), Chelsea and a strong United. Were Liverpool (the 4th favorites) really much better? They were underdogs but not massive underdogs. Moratti himself brought Jose to Inter specifically because he felt Mancini should be going close with the squad he had (a squad who dominated Italy). I'll not say it wasn't a shock but outside of United and Barca was their really anyone else in the competition they weren't expected to go close with.

The were marginal underdogs.

Pep's Barcelona were not the favorites in La Liga nevermind the CL when he took over. He won the treble that season as an underdog in every competition but its skipped over because people like to make excuses that he inherited the team, while Jose gets a free pass for inheriting a fantastic Real team or a really strong Inter. One could argue his first Chelsea side was Ranieri's for the best part too.

Your City point is refutable btw, Cities finishing positions in the league were 2nd and 4th (on GD). United 4th and 5th, Chelsea 1st and 10th, Spurs 3rd and 5th, Arsenal 2nd and 3rd. There was no clear strongest but City were indeed marginal favourites.

I posted you a link where the split was tight between City and United between ex Pros and industry pro's last season.

While City under Pep were favorites it was not clearly the best squad in the league he took over and his Barca side were underdogs.
Barca weren't considered the best side in the world by any stretch until after Pep set them on their way. It was under him they became the best.

 

[padr81]

Beating Barcelona once and doing it in dominant fashion is an achievement in itself imo. Though his last season was pitiful.

I think he ended Barcelona's mental advantage over Real Madrid though and deserves credit.

It was a great season but not dominant imo.. To dominate Barca is to do what Zidane is currently doing to them. If Barca bounce back and win the league this season by 9 points this season, then Real kill them again next. Real are the dominant team in Spain, not Barca. Likewise for Jose's spell in Madrid, he arrived at a team who were being dominated and left a team being dominated. In his time in Spain, Barca picked up 287 points, Real picked up 277 points. That is in now way dominance. Barca picked up 2 La Liga, 1 Copa Del Rey and a Champions League, Real picked up 1 La Liga and 1 CdR.

Don't get me wrong at all, it was a great win and a brilliant team. It was a great season too. He practically broke Pep that season too... probably the reason the guy still has the shakes. But it was not a period of dominance. In his time in La Liga. His record vs Barca was P6, w2, d2, l2 which is very good in general especially when his record v Pep is so poor.

 

[El cangrejo]

Because today's line-up is all that matters?

The kind of squad depth Guardiola has at his disposal is incredible. Since he took over he has bought: three centre midfielders, two wide attackers, two attacking midfielders, two strikers, two first choice goalkeepers, a £50 mn centre half, and three fullbacks. One or two of those players aren't at the club but the point stands.

One has to give him some credit. At least he isn't wasting money like he did with Chygrynskiy and Hleb.

In regards to "he bought a completely new team" it's clearly false. He's essentially been playing the same players as last season with different full backs and goalkeeper.

He's made a lot of (necessary) personnel changes since taking over but in the same time Mourinho has bought Bailly, Lindelöf, Matić, Pogba, Mkhitaryan, Ibrahimović and Lukaku, while Conte has signed Luiz, Alonso, Zappacosta, Rüdiger, Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Kanté, Batshuayi and Morata. If you're going to criticise a guy for "buying a new team" you should probably recognise that his two main rivals have done the same thing.

 

[serghei]

City would be dark horses but it wouldn't be a major upset if they did and to do it they would have to go up against Real, Barca, Bayern, Juve, PSG and Atletico.

Teams more fancied than Inter, were admittedly peak Barca (who Jose out thought), Chelsea and a strong United. Were Liverpool (the 4th favorites) really much better? They were underdogs but not massive underdogs. Moratti himself brought Jose to Inter specifically because he felt Mancini should be going close with the squad he had (a squad who dominated Italy). I'll not say it wasn't a shock but outside of United and Barca was their really anyone else in the competition they weren't expected to go close with.

The were marginal underdogs.

Pep's Barcelona were not the favorites in La Liga nevermind the CL when he took over. He won the treble that season as an underdog in every competition but its skipped over because people like to make excuses that he inherited the team, while Jose gets a free pass for inheriting a fantastic Real team or a really strong Inter. One could argue his first Chelsea side was Ranieri's for the best part too.

Your City point is refutable btw, Cities finishing positions in the league were 2nd and 4th (on GD). United 4th and 5th, Chelsea 1st and 10th, Spurs 3rd and 5th, Arsenal 2nd and 3rd. There was no clear strongest but City were indeed marginal favourites.

I posted you a link where the split was tight between City and United between ex Pros and industry pro's last season.

While City under Pep were favorites it was not clearly the best squad in the league he took over and his Barca side were underdogs.
Barca weren't considered the best side in the world by any stretch until after Pep set them on their way. It was under him they became the best.

Good points. Among Barca fans it's clear that 2009-12 Barca was his team. Most of us see it like that. He made massive, really massive moves to build that team, some where very ballsy, like getting rid of Deco and Ronaldinho, at an age that many would still try to make use of them. Created Xavi - Iniesta - Busi. Xavi reportedly was close to leaving the club at the end of the 2007-08 season. Pep came and made him the best CM in the world by a mile. Pep did some mistakes too, like trading Eto'o for Ibra. But overall, people speak about 'Pep's Barca', not because he happened to be the manager that time, but because that was his team.

 

[Womp]

In regards to "he bought a completely new team" it's clearly false. He's essentially been playing the same players as last season with different full backs and goalkeeper.

He's made a lot of (necessary) personnel changes since taking over but in the same time Mourinho has bought Bailly, Lindelöf, Matić, Pogba, Mkhitaryan, Ibrahimović and Lukaku, while Conte has signed Luiz, Alonso, Zappacosta, Rüdiger, Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Kanté, Batshuayi and Morata. If you're going to criticise a guy for "buying a new team" you should probably recognise that his two main rivals have done the same thing.

DDG, Jones, Rojo, Valencia, Blind, Darmian, Smalling, Shaw, Herrera, Fellaini, Carrick, Martial, Rashford, Mata, Lingard are all players who are used in our squad that Jose inherited.

Meanwhile under Pep City have a new goalkeeper (two if you want to be cheeky), three new fullbacks, two new centrebacks, a new CM, about 500 new attackers. He uses Silva, Aguero, Sterling (who he was trying to replace with Sanchez, anyway), Fernandinho and Kompany from the players he inherited, all players who (apart from Fernandinho) are amongst the best in the league in their positions and have been for a while.

It's really not comparable, Pep has made much bigger changes, resulting in replacing players he brought in to replace the players he inherited. (See the goalkeeper situation) It doesn't matter though ultimately, if he wins the league fair play to him. He's brought in some cracking players for them, but don't see why people are trying to argue he hasn't made wholesale changes.

 

[serghei]

DDG, Jones, Rojo, Valencia, Blind, Darmian, Smalling, Shaw, Herrera, Fellaini, Carrick, Martial, Rashford, Mata, Lingard are all players who are almost mainstays or used in our teams, all players Jose has inherited.

Meanwhile under Pep City have a new goalkeeper (two if you want to be cheeky), three new fullbacks, two new centrebacks, a new CM, about 500 new attackers. He uses Silva, Aguero, Fernandinho and Kompany from the players he inherited, all players who (apart from Fernandinho) are amongst the best in the league in their positions and have been for a while.

It's really not comparable, Pep has made much bigger changes, resulting in replacing players he brought in to replace the players he inherited. It doesn't matter though ultimately, if he wins the league fair play to him.

That's down to the different profiles of Pep and Mourinho. Mourinho can win with a wider variety of players. That's something he has over Guardiola. Guardiola, in return, makes his teams play better football as he is more attacking oriented.

Mourinho is very flexible. Guardiola is not. Mourinho would adapt his tactics to suit his players, while Guardiola will shape the squad to the tiniest details to fit his tactics and his vision.

Before any team hires these two, they should know their strong points, and their weak points. I think both City and United did that, and they knew very well the possible risks and rewards included with Pep and Mourinho. This is why I don't think either will be sacked if they fail to do very well this season.

 

[Womp]

That's down to the different profiles of Pep and Mourinho. Mourinho can win with a wider variety of players. That's something he has over Guardiola. Guardiola, in return, makes his teams play better football as he is more attacking oriented.

Mourinho is very flexible. Guardiola is not. Mourinho would adapt his tactics to suit his players, while Guardiola will shape the squad to the tiniest details to fit his tactics and his vision.

Which is a fair assessment of them both. I just don't see the need as to why people try and discount that. Pep isn't some miracle worker who can turn shite into Messi, he needs top players to implement his system, that's been known for a while.

It's no secret he wants the best - which is why he's replaced so many players and why he was planning to replace Sterling with the superior Sanchez. He has players he thinks he wants and he has gone and got them (for the most part). There's nothing wrong with that, don't see why people try and act like it's not the case.

 

[serghei]

Which is a fair assessment of them both. I just don't see the need as to why people try and discount that. Pep isn't some miracle worker who can turn shite into Messi, he needs top players to implement his system, that's been known for a while.

No, he's not. And because he is a winner in spirit, like Mourinho, he won't be some Wenger and be happy to get his ideas across and have his own club where he can win nothing. This is why, like Mourinho, he doesn't stay very long at the same club.

 

[Laurentiu amt]

Yeah, they are the favorites no doubt. But there are still scenarios which can mean they loose out. If Chelsea go out of the CL and other cups early, they could focus on the league like last year. Spurs also have an outside chance as well. And there's also always the chance Pep could screw things up himself.

We have Zlatan probably coming back in Jan, and Griezmann is also possible we could get in Jan. But I still think the most crucial thing for us to have a shot, is to have Martial and Rashford delivering and upping their game quite a bit compared to last season. And if Mikhi can get back to performing consistently like his Dortmund days, then it's possible for sure.

I agree with the rest of your points. They will always be vulnerable to counters because of the way they play. If you manage to get by their initial press, it basically becomes wide open to run in behind. And they always play the same way, which can make it easier for the good managers to set up against.

We will probably still sit back against them and let them have possession like last year, but the difference is, now we have a better chance of scoring on counters with Lukaku instead of Zlatan.

Agreed ofc. I can't wait to see our next game against them, to see how Jose will set it up. We seem to be a bit more confident with the ball this year and we might try to go toe to toe with them, but that depends on the points difference at that given moment in time.

For us it will be hard to win the easy games, as when compared to City. City have far better attackers, players that will murder the weak teams. For us to do the same, as you pointed out, Martial and Rashford need to up their game seriously, or even Miki.

What might kill us in the run-in is the lack of quality depth on the defense's wings.
Left side: Shaw with no decent backup, especially against the average to good teams
Right side: Tony with Young as backup and Darmian. (well, the whole forum can slate me, but no matter how you put it, that flank looks weak. All due respect to Tony, he's been a good player, but he can't feking cross a decent ball even if threatened with a gun, a 10 meter gun.) Young can't string 10 games together without breaking his legs and Darmian will not cross the halfway line when playing. I hate losing Aurier to Spurs, absolutely hate it.

Our fullbacks being absolutely shite at crossing puts a lot of pressure on Martial, rash, Miki to take people on and try to create stuff. And that's the weakest point of our lineup, for sure.

 

[padr81]

DDG, Jones, Rojo, Valencia, Blind, Darmian, Smalling, Shaw, Herrera, Fellaini, Carrick, Martial, Rashford, Mata, Lingard are all players who are used in our squad that Jose inherited.

Meanwhile under Pep City have a new goalkeeper (two if you want to be cheeky), three new fullbacks, two new centrebacks, a new CM, about 500 new attackers. He uses Silva, Aguero, Sterling (who he was trying to replace with Sanchez, anyway), Fernandinho and Kompany from the players he inherited, all players who (apart from Fernandinho) are amongst the best in the league in their positions and have been for a while.

It's really not comparable, Pep has made much bigger changes, resulting in replacing players he brought in to replace the players he inherited. (See the goalkeeper situation) It doesn't matter though ultimately, if he wins the league fair play to him. He's brought in some cracking players for them, but don't see why people are trying to argue he hasn't made wholesale changes.

Lets make this fair.
DDG, Jones, Rojo, Valencia, Blind, Darmian, Smalling, Shaw, Herrera, Fellaini, Carrick, Martial, Rashford, Mata, Lingard - thats 15 players you named from before Jose arrived.
Kompany, Otamendi, Mangala, Fernandinho, Yaya, KDB, David Silva, Delph, Sterling, Aguero, Foden.- thats 11 players in the first team squad this season from before Pep arrived.

Against Basel United started 6 players who were at the club before Jose.
Against Stoke 6 players started who were there from before Jose arrived.
Against Leicester 6 players started who were at United before Jose arrived.
Against Swansea 6 players started who were at United before Jose arrived.

Bit of a pattern there.....

Every single team Pep has fielded so far this season has had at exactly 6 players start who were at the club before he joined City.

They have both changed roughly half of there starting XI both have squads according to Transfermarkt that cost over £650m. United $656, City £699m, though I'm unsure how accurate that info is on there.

The loser of the 2 this season should probably lose his job. Or if both lose both of them should.

 

[padr81]

I don't view last season as a failure, winning the EL and minor cup imo is a solid season for me and more successful than coming top 4. Of course the aim is to win the league, but it's a very competitive league now and not winning it but doing well elsewhere isn't a failure. If he came 6th and didn't win EL then I'd say it wasn't a successful season.

The point you make about Inter isn't a myth at all, the reason he's praised so much is precisely the same reason Pep is criticised - winning the CL is hard. Pep had a better team with Bayern but failed 3 seasons in a row - whereas Mourinho faced one of the best Barcelona sides ever over 2 legs and beat them en route. Using the 10/1 statistic is very misleading - part of the reason they were at better odds is due to them signing Mourinho and the signings he made. For a comparison of how Inter fared previously - they went out in the round of 16 in the previous 2 seasons of the CL.

Real I do agree with you though that he had a solid squad, I guess where the comparisons come from is that that Madrid side isn't as good as the current peak one, whereas that Barca side was better than this current one. Still not a huge mismatch for either given they only face each other twice over a season.

That said, they do both have their positives and negatives, but your post is exaggerating Mourinho's. Last season at United isn't a blemish at all - it's a positive one for me. His last stint at Chelsea is a blemish but he didn't finish 10th with them as you state - that's just where he got sacked. He would've most likely finished higher had he lasted the full season. Both managers are very good but Mourinho's easily had the better career thus far, mostly due to him being at it longer than Pep and depth of his success vs Pep's rather limited scope of success thus far (Bayern and Barca). Pep I think will end up with a very successful career overall though as I think he'll do well at City and then probably take on a team like PSG. Just at this point Mourinho's done more.

Sorry I missed this. Great post. My exact point was a reply to someone saying Pep was clearly better, stating he wasn't and defending Jose. Likewise I'll defend Pep too when I read rubbish like, Jose is clearly a better manager. In reality, like I said in the first place, they are both top managers, both have been at top clubs most there career (since Jose left Porto, Peps entire career) and there is very little to seperate them. Jose has slightly more trophies over a longer time frame but Pep started at a higher level.

Pep has never finished below 3rd in his career, Jose has being sacked for being 10th with the defending champions of course its a blemish on him.
Jose has won the CL with Porto and Inter, Pep has won it with an underdog Barcelona (yes they were underdogs in his 1st season, but of course they weren't the level of underdog Inter were or even close on Porto.). Pep though failed to win it at Bayern which is a blemish for him.
Joses time at Real will always be a solid 6/10 for me and thats a blemish for a manager of Jose caliber.
Last season was a blemish for both. Pep's pretty much infallable reputation too a huge hit and deservedly so...
Only winning a competition he didn't want to be in save Jose from an even worse fate. Both scraped CL football, albeit Pep marginally more comfortable than Jose. That's a blemish for both with £500m squads.

I'll openly admit, the two trophies mean Jose had the better season in the end last term, but it was still a poor season. When your season defining moment comes down to 90 minutes in a competition you shouldn't be in in the first place that's a poor season though. The gloss of the trophies make it a better one than Cities and Pep's but on its own merit. 6th in the league, plus Europa and Carling Cup is not a Manchester United season... not even close and not the season you guys were expecting at the outset. Liverpool were laughed at for their treble.

The last two seasons are the two seasons that have left question marks hanging over both imho.

 

[Janson]

Pep's Barcelona were not the favorites in La Liga nevermind the CL when he took over. He won the treble that season as an underdog in every competition but its skipped over because people like to make excuses that he inherited the team, while Jose gets a free pass for inheriting a fantastic Real team or a really strong Inter. One could argue his first Chelsea side was Ranieri's for the best part too.

Your City point is refutable btw, Cities finishing positions in the league were 2nd and 4th (on GD). United 4th and 5th, Chelsea 1st and 10th, Spurs 3rd and 5th, Arsenal 2nd and 3rd. There was no clear strongest but City were indeed marginal favourites.

I posted you a link where the split was tight between City and United between ex Pros and industry pro's last season.

While City under Pep were favorites it was not clearly the best squad in the league he took over and his Barca side were underdogs.
Barca weren't considered the best side in the world by any stretch until after Pep set them on their way. It was under him they became the best.

First of all, Barca did not win the CL in Peps first season. Maybe on paper, but they only got lucky to go through against a superior Chelsea side (who wiped the floor with them at SB) because of ref incompetence. I don't see how Pep can be given credit for that, when everyone saw what happened.

He might have filled in some pieces to make the team better. But he did inherit the most important players, the very core of that team, in Xavi, Messi and Iniesta and even Puyol. Without these three players, that team had never been able to become what it did. And you have other great players he inherited like Eto, Abidal, Toure and probably more.

He just happened to get lucky to get his hands on the best player who has ever lived. In my eyes it's pretty much Messi who made Pep along with Iniesta and Xavi, not the other way around.

 

[El cangrejo]

That's down to the different profiles of Pep and Mourinho. Mourinho can win with a wider variety of players. That's something he has over Guardiola. Guardiola, in return, makes his teams play better football as he is more attacking oriented.

Mourinho is very flexible. Guardiola is not. Mourinho would adapt his tactics to suit his players, while Guardiola will shape the squad to the tiniest details to fit his tactics and his vision.

If you can't see that City play a very different style to his Barcelona side then it doesn't seem you've been paying much attention to either. City at their best under him have been playing a very "Premier League" type of football, closer to Luis Enrique's Barcelona in the attacking third to Pep-era Barça.

Guardiola obviously has a very clear fundamental way of playing, but has been adapting and modifying it to suit his personnel and the leagues he's been coaching in since his first year at Barça.

 

[El cangrejo]

First of all, Barca did not win the CL in Peps first season. Maybe on paper, but they only got lucky to go through against a superior Chelsea side (who wiped the floor with them at SB) because of ref incompetence. I don't see how Pep can be given credit for that, when everyone saw what happened.

Weird how that "superior Chelsea side" were nowhere to be seen in the Premier League, when the winners of that competition were completely outplayed by Barcelona in the final.

There's no way anyone can have a sensible debate about Guardiola because his detractors want to hold him to this ridiculous standard where he can't be a top manager unless he wins things without making any signings, having any world class players or ever getting a lucky result like literally every other world class coach in the history of football.