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

[AR87]

So tell me again, how did he 'splurge' at Inter/Madrid?

Thing is Mourinho won a freaking CL with Porto too. Sure he's splashed the cash at other clubs he's joined, because why would he not, but he's proven, outside of this weird debate alleging he spent some boatload of money at Inter to win, that he can punch above his weight at the highest level.

Also he had to sell Zlatan, his best player at Inter, to put the finishing touches on the squad that he ultimately won the treble with, including a massive upset over PepGod and his GOAT team.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Thing is Mourinho won a freaking CL with Porto too. Sure he's splashed the cash at other clubs he's joined, because why would he not, but he's proven, outside of this weird debate alleging he spent some boatload of money at Inter to win, that he can punch above his weight at the highest level.

Also he had to sell Zlatan, his best player at Inter, to put the finishing touches on the squad that he ultimately won the treble with, including a massive upset over PepGod and his GOAT team.

It's a case of if you repeat something often enough, it is accepted as truth. Even at Madrid the bulk of his transfer activities were done in his first season and the two highest profile players i.e Ozil and AdM were both success and eventually netted the club a nice profit when moved on, Modric is still now their mainstay in midfield, 4 years on.

Mourinho can and often fall out with his club/dressing room, but accusing him of fiscal imprudence and little regard to long term team building is agenda-driven schpiel since all of his former clubs had success after he left.

 

[ninjaskill]

I think Pep's biggest flaw is he seems to struggle with buying in players to improve his sides, the number of flops that he has had compared to successful transfers seems unusually high to me. Zlatan failed at Barca for a near world record fee, he spent 25 million on a Ukrainian defender who also left after a couple of season, at Bayern Gotze cost them a lot and failed to show anything under him Benatia also cost 25 million and is currently at Juve after two pretty poor seasons with Bayern along with Douglas Costa.

He bought Fabregas, Hleb, Sanchez, Caceras, Kerrison, Adriano, Afelly and Hernrique at Barca out of 16 transfers he made I would say that 8 didn't work out which seems like a very poor ratio of success to failure.

It's to early to judge at City most players however, Nolito is already gone and Claudio Bravo was much better at letting the ball go past him than stopping it

 

[entropy]

Just for the record, a net spend of 38m pound over 2 seasons in 08-10 counted as a 'splurge' according to you?

You have already been quoted the figures for other teams. Bayern, known for their fiscal prudence, and Juventus who was off building a new stadium at the time both spent more than Mourinho Inter during the same period, did they splurge?

Maybe addressing that first before waffling on. No one ever said Mourinho never spent money, but the myth behind him buying shit load of old players that left his clubs in the shit is patently untrue. the Chelsea team he left made the CL final and 2nd in PL the following season, much of the spine of that team still played a part in their 2012 CL win, Madrid won CL the season after he left with no significant marquee signing, Inter won Copa Italia, 2nd in Seria A and made CL quarter in 10-11. He has never once broken a world transfer record or league transfer record until the Pogba transfer. So tell me again, how did he 'splurge' at Inter/Madrid?

Does Inter Milan have the same fan base as Juve or Bayern Munich? If they do, then why are they struggling financially? Why aren't they competing with Bayern in the cl or with Juventus for the serie A? How come all of a sudden the club took such a huge dive? Jose has always had the support of owners who shared the same ambition as him. Which is completely fine because he won them trophies. But to go out of you way and argue that he was actually "fiscally responsible" and left squads in better shape than ever is just incredibly naive and silly.

 

[reelworld]

Getting Bravo and ditching him after 1 season is idiotic IMO. Why not kept Hart and get a more suitable keeper this summer?

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Does Inter Milan have the same fan base as Juve or Bayern Munich? If they do, then why are they struggling financially? Why aren't they competing with Bayern in the cl or with Juventus for the serie A? How come all of a sudden the club took such a huge dive? .

Moratti's personal wealth nosedived, just a thought? They were the sugar daddy club before sugar daddy club were cool. Same as Milan who was bankrolled by Berlusconi, where are they now?

It's not even 'all of a sudden'. As has been pointed out exhaustively to you, they did decently the season after he left, then in 11-12 sold their top scorer who got 37 goals for them in 10-11 and got a washed up Forlan as replacement, then finished 6th. Changing coaches thrice during that season also played it part.

But to go out of you way and argue that he was actually "fiscally responsible" and left squads in better shape than ever is just incredibly naive and silly.

He left them a decent squad that can use some new transfers as well as shipping out older ones that are in demand fresh off their CL win. Maicon and Sneijder were linked with a move away for most of that summer but they refused to sell. Are coaches now responsible for the way their club conduct business? It's on Inter who stubbornly tried to keep that Treble team intact while actually losing good young talent (at the time) like Balotelli and bring in dross like Nagatomo.

P.S: A quick Google search that you are also very fond of revealed that Juve and Inter earning in 08-09 were 203 and 196m respectively, and 205 and 224 in 09-10. Hardly miles apart is it?

 

[finneh]

Lots of suppositions and unverified assumptions

Suppositions and assumptions in an entirely opinion based comment whereby evidence is non-existent, I believe the common colloquialism is "no shit Sherlock".

you should know that having an exceptionally talented group of players is not a a guarantee of winning anything. They still have to be moulded together as a group

I somewhat disagree with this also. Many mediocre managers have won trophies because of their team strength. Look at the reaction of Juventus fans when appointing Allegri vs what he's achieved at the club. Man City likewise under Pellegrini. Do we have any idea if Zidane is a great manager for steering the best team in the world to back to back CL titles? We will surely find out in the coming decades, but the answer certainly isn't conclusively "yes" at this moment.

introduction of a new footballing style that allowed them to fulfill that potential, both individually and collectively. Spain then take that same style onto the International stage to even greater success as a nation. It's a point that many of you seem to be strangely overlooking. Other managers have received far more credit for doing much less.

Spain's international success pre-dates Guardiola's appointment. They won the 2008 European Championships under Aragones prior to Guardiola managing a competitive game with Barcelona. Using Guardiola's style as a platform for Spain's success is more ludicrous chronologically than using Aragones' style and success as a platform for Barcelona's.

Aragones, Guardiola, Del Bosque, Vilanova & Enrique; some good managers, some poor managers; all won trophies and benefited from the same thing: a phenomenal team whose spine came through a once in a generation group of La Masia talent. Guardiola and Del Bosque in that group had the unique benefit of a peak Pique, Puyol, Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets; with Guardiola additionally having Messi as the greatest ever cherry on any cake.

 

[entropy]

Moratti's personal wealth nosedived, just a thought? They were the sugar daddy club before sugar daddy club were cool. Same as Milan who was bankrolled by Berlusconi, where are they now?

It's not even 'all of a sudden'. As has been pointed out exhaustively to you, they did decently the season after he left, then in 11-12 sold their top scorer who got 37 goals for them in 10-11 and got a washed up Forlan as replacement, then finished 6th. Changing coaches thrice during that season also played it part.

He left them a decent squad that can use some new transfers as well as shipping out older ones that are in demand fresh off their CL win. Maicon and Sneijder were linked with a move away for most of that summer but they refused to sell. Are coaches now responsible for the way their club conduct business? It's on Inter who stubbornly tried to keep that Treble team intact while actually losing good young talent (at the time) like Balotelli and bring in dross like Nagatomo.

P.S: A quick Google search that you are also very fond of revealed that Juve and Inter earning in 08-09 were 203 and 196m respectively, and 205 and 224 in 09-10. Hardly miles apart is it?

Moratti did what any owner in his situation would have done. He cashed in on Inter's status as "treble winners" and left the club to rot. He couldn't give a feck less about the fans because he and Jose had just made history. As for your point about Juventus, they actually did a decent rebuild and figured out a business model that works for them. The results speak for themselves.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Moratti did what any owner in his situation would have done. He cashed in on Inter's status as "treble winners" and left the club to rot. He couldn't give a feck less about the fans because he and Jose had just made history. As for your point about Juventus, they actually did a decent rebuild and figured out a business model that works for them. The results speak for themselves.

And that is on Mourinho how? If the Glazers walk out tomorrow and we get a new owner who sell off half the team and we then struggle as a result, is it on them or on the manager who built the team?

You keep getting on tangents without ever addressing the original point you made, which is Mourinho 'splurged' at Inter/Madrid - demonstrably false.

 

[entropy]

And that is on Mourinho how? If the Glazers walk out tomorrow and we get a new owner who sell off half the team and we then struggle as a result, is it on them or on the manager who built the team?

You keep getting on tangents without ever addressing the original point you made, which is Mourinho 'splurged' at Inter/Madrid - demonstrably false.

How is it not on Jose? He signed those players and on those wages. Didn't he? If he did leave them in better shape, why would they be selling off their assets and cutting down on wages?!

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

How is it not on Jose? He signed those players and on those wages. Didn't he?

Anything stopped Inter from selling those players if they have problem paying the wage?

It's beyond comical. They have done that for years, like, actually paying record fees to go along with the extravagant wages to lure top players there, fat Ronaldo, Crespo, Vieri, Ibrahimovich. The moment Mourinho bought some players, he somehow became the one destroying the wage structure and club's finances.

 

[Dion]

You forgot Dani Alves.

Ready to flourish? How could you possibly know that without the obvious benefit of hindsight? It's easy to look back now and say 'it was obviously going to happen'. If so, why had no-one predicted it beforehand? And you pull me for cherry picking data. Think you are cherry picking memories and refashioning them to better fit your general opinion of Guardiola.

That was his Cop a del Rey winning team one year after Rikjaard left. How can anyone say he just walked into a side -that was not yet formed- who were somehow already destined to win a treble, and give him no credit whatsoever for his role in achieving that?

However you lot try and slice it up, he changed the personnel, and he introduced a completely new style of play. 2008/09 was a treble winning year for Barca. Spain won the Euro's that summer in 2008 -their first tournament win since 1964- playing his style of football. Then the WC in 2010, and the Euro's yet again in 2012.

Guardiola's impact was huge, he transformed Barca into one of the best teams ever, and his introduction of the tika taka style of play was not only pivotal in Barca's success, but clearly provided the catalyst for Spain's unprecedented international domination of the next 3 tournaments. Or was that all purely coincidental too?

Barca played us off the park in 2 legs the year we won the CL, Spain won the Euros.

They didn't need to predict it would happen, it already had.

 

[apotheosis]

I think Pep's biggest flaw is he seems to struggle with buying in players to improve his sides, the number of flops that he has had compared to successful transfers seems unusually high to me. Zlatan failed at Barca for a near world record fee, he spent 25 million on a Ukrainian defender who also left after a couple of season, at Bayern Gotze cost them a lot and failed to show anything under him Benatia also cost 25 million and is currently at Juve after two pretty poor seasons with Bayern along with Douglas Costa.

He bought Fabregas, Hleb, Sanchez, Caceras, Kerrison, Adriano, Afelly and Hernrique at Barca out of 16 transfers he made I would say that 8 didn't work out which seems like a very poor ratio of success to failure.

Pep's biggest flaw is he has become convinced that what he achieved at Barca can be implemented and replicated at any club he goes to. I think not personally, but we will see i suppose. That style of play was ingrained into those Barca players from an early age, but when players from other clubs were brought in, they lacked the fundamental training and instinctive mindset required and therefore struggled to fit into it. Players like Sanchez and Ibra, for instance, are players who like to hold on to the ball and dictate the play, which simply wasn't what Barca required. They required more links for the chain, not extra cogs, so to speak.

Even Fabregas struggled to fit back in and he was developed at Barca. So it must be a very intimidating situation for any player coming in from elsewhere, and watching that Barca team effortlessly knock the ball around with such speed and fluidity, and not feel like an outsider wondering how the hell you are going to make them better.

Jupp Heynckes won the treble at Bayern just before Pep took over, so he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing there right from the off. He did ok there, but City is the defining test for him now, he has spent big and so what he does there will prove whether or not he can build his own team, instill his philosophies and replicate (to some extent) what he achieved at Barca.

I give him full credit for overseeing the introduction of the tika taka style, and capitalizing fully upon an emerging crop of hugely talented players, and then implementing a system that allowed them to flourish both individually and as a group. His influences on football have been huge stemming from his time at Barca. But i don't believe he can carry on stubbornly trying to implement similar standards at different clubs simply because they worked at Barca.

 

[Natener]

Does Inter Milan have the same fan base as Juve or Bayern Munich? If they do, then why are they struggling financially? Why aren't they competing with Bayern in the cl or with Juventus for the serie A? How come all of a sudden the club took such a huge dive? Jose has always had the support of owners who shared the same ambition as him. Which is completely fine because he won them trophies. But to go out of you way and argue that he was actually "fiscally responsible" and left squads in better shape than ever is just incredibly naive and silly.

Inter aren't exactly minnows on the club scene. They were actually 2time European Cup winners who already broke the world transfer record twice before Mourinho came along. Here's the 3 managers that came before him.
Net spend under Marcelo Lippi 1999-2000:
-£156m so says transfermkt
Net spend under Hector Cuper 2001-2003:
-£65m
Net spend under Mancini 2004-2008:
-£23m

Mourinho clearly didn't spend recklessly matched against those predecessors. By the way, want to guess under which manager did Inter record their highest seasonal revenue ever to this day? Mourinho. He didn't skint but even then, he hardly spent outrageously while Inter was registering their highest revenue in 2 seasons (yep, 2nd year was under Mourinho too) during the 2000s.

 

[Kapardin]

Pep's biggest flaw is he has become convinced that what he achieved at Barca can be implemented and replicated at any club he goes to. I think not personally, but we will see i suppose. That style of play was ingrained into those Barca players from an early age, but when players from other clubs were brought in, they lacked the fundamental training and instinctive mindset required and therefore struggled to fit into it. Players like Sanchez and Ibra, for instance, are players who like to hold on to the ball and dictate the play, which simply wasn't what Barca required. They required more links for the chain, not extra cogs, so to speak.

Even Fabregas struggled to fit back in and he was developed at Barca. So it must be a very intimidating situation for any player coming in from elsewhere, and watching that Barca team effortlessly knock the ball around with such speed and fluidity, and not feel like an outsider wondering how the hell you are going to make them better.

Jupp Heynckes won the treble at Bayern just before Pep took over, so he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing there right from the off. He did ok there, but City is the defining test for him now, he has spent big and so what he does there will prove whether or not he can build his own team, instill his philosophies and replicate (to some extent) what he achieved at Barca.

I give him full credit for overseeing the introduction of the tika taka style, and capitalizing fully upon an emerging crop of hugely talented players, and then implementing a system that allowed them to flourish both individually and as a group. His influences on football have been huge stemming from his time at Barca. But i don't believe he can carry on stubbornly trying to implement similar standards at different clubs simply because they worked at Barca.

This is also the reason why Pep's under huge pressure, because it is not just him. City's owners also believe the same style can be replicated at their club and they can carry on after him.

If Pep wins the league while playing the same football we have seen for the past 3 games, he will still not be able to satisfy the City heirarchy. Even Pellegrini can do that. He was hired specifically to turn them into Barcelona II.

 

[apotheosis]

Barca played us off the park in 2 legs the year we won the CL, Spain won the Euros.

They didn't need to predict it would happen, it already had.

I've not denied they were emerging as a talented group, i just don't see why people are so set on denying Guardiola's influence upon the style of their play, and the subsequent fulfillment of that talent. Zidane has took Madrid to a different level of performance and consistency, and is currently overseeing an ongoing period of Madrid dominance. Yet, that team was saturated with talent when he inherited it, but (applying the same reasoning as being used against Pep) he apparently doesn't deserve much credit for implementing a different style of play upon a group of extremely talented players and getting the best out of them. He already had a group of experienced and extremely talented players, who were already well established as a top team, which was obviously well advanced to what Pep inherited. So should Zidane get the credit due to him, or is he even less deserving than Pep?

It's just bizarre reasoning to me. Any coach who gets a team playing like Barca did and winning trophies galore while doing it, deserves due credit. Why would anybody even want to criticize a coach for regularly getting the best out of the players at his disposal and winning Barca numerous titles and trophies?

 

[apotheosis]

This is also the reason why Pep's under huge pressure, because it is not just him. City's owners also believe the same style can be replicated at their club and they can carry on after him.

If Pep wins the league while playing the same football we have seen for the past 3 games, he will still not be able to satisfy the City heirarchy. Even Pellegrini can do that. He was hired specifically to turn them into Barcelona II.

If they give him 10 years he might be able to implement at system from youth level upwards and develop players specifically for his style, but i doubt he will get another 2 years without some immediate success. Well, if there is a club where you can buy a whole new team to custom fit your ideas, then City is probably his best bet. He has spent enough money so far, but it's such a high bar he set, far too high for him to ever reach again, for me.

 

[Treble]

Guardiola is at least as great a manager as Sacchi and Sacchi is one of the great managers of modern times.

One could say that Sacchi had an incredible squad featuring some of the best defenders of all time, fantastic midfielders and Van Basten and Gullit up front. Apparently, he did nothing special because he had the best players in Europe. But one must be very stupid or incredibly blinkered to think that Sacchi was nothing special. And Sacchi wasn't a success after Milan. Was he a fraud?

Was Fergie a fraud because he won only 2 CL trophies in his career? If Pep's period at Bayern is a failure because he did not win the CL there (in competition with exceptional teams like Messi's Barca and Ronaldo's Madrid), then is any year in which Fergie flopped in Europe nothing special? Seriously? How stupid is that?

One can say that Fergie created the great United teams from scratch. That's true. Fergie was unique in his ability to build new great teams at the same club. But how many years did he need to do it successfully? Was he a fraud when he struggled in the first several years at United? I guess many thought so.

Let us criticise Guardiola for his real failures to implement his ideas but let us not go OTT with silly points and hypotheticals (e.g. that any good manager would have created that Barca team).

 

[PepG]

Pep's biggest task aftet leaving Barcelona is exactly to prove to the world that his idea of football, his style is suitable everywhere, it's universal. Thats why he went to Germany first - a country known with its totally opposite way of playing to his ideas. And now England. Possibly in the future he will go to Italy or France. One thing is for sure - he will adapt to the strengths of his players wherever he is coaching but he will NEVER give up on his basic principles. Never.

Btw i saw the name of Zidane being mentioned in this thread. I highly suggest to all of you to see this tactical analysis of the Spanish Super cup second leg game between Real and Barca just a few weeks ago. Watch carefully how Zidane's team beat Barca. Looks quite familiar, isn't it ?! Yeah, thats exactly how Pep's Barca was playing against Madrid back in the day. This is Guardiola's legacy:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=nbzupasYQP4

 

[apotheosis]

Suppositions and assumptions in an entirely opinion based comment whereby evidence is non-existent, I believe the common colloquialism is "no shit Sherlock".

I somewhat disagree with this also. Many mediocre managers have won trophies because of their team strength. Look at the reaction of Juventus fans when appointing Allegri vs what he's achieved at the club. Man City likewise under Pellegrini. Do we have any idea if Zidane is a great manager for steering the best team in the world to back to back CL titles? We will surely find out in the coming decades, but the answer certainly isn't conclusively "yes" at this moment.


Aragones, Guardiola, Del Bosque, Vilanova & Enrique; some good managers, some poor managers; all won trophies and benefited from the same thing: a phenomenal team whose spine came through a once in a generation group of La Masia talent. Guardiola and Del Bosque in that group had the unique benefit of a peak Pique, Puyol, Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets; with Guardiola additionally having Messi as the greatest ever cherry on any cake.

Suppositions -by your own suggestion- that could be applied to SAF, yet, they are not.

Why do we need to take credit from Zidane's achievement at Madrid, just because he hasn't yet replicated them at another club? We cannot know what he will achieve elsewhere, so why not simply give him credit now for turning Madrid into a dominant force, instead of downplaying his achievements while you wait for some hypothetical scenario to possibly play out at another club later on down the line. Nothing wrong with waiting till later in his career before lauding him as an all time great, but why not give him his due now, and hold back on both the eulogizing and the criticism until either is deserved?

Instilling a winning mentality into a group of talented players is the key to any success. Enrique is yet another example, he inherited the same group of players, but the way they were playing when he took over they were not winning anything. He bought Suarez and changed Barca's set up to a deeper more solid defensive unit, with greater emphasis on getting the ball up to the forwards far quicker. Transformed their fortunes over that season, i would suggest. Turning them from a team lacking confidence to CL winners. Any group can only ever achieve by having belief in their leader to get the best out of them. That is not a given, im afraid, irrespective of the players there. We should realise that after watching Utd go from champions to 7th, and right now, watching the belief and confidence rise again under Jose, a far cry from the confidence sapping influences of LVG.

 

[RedRover]

Firstly Jose has already proven himself a great manager by winning many trophies against the odds. Naturally Porto and Inter stand out but even winning his league title in Spain against one of the greatest teams ever was winning unexpectedly.

Likewise Jose's team went into this season as third favourites behind Chelsea and the favourites City. So again if he wins the title it will be as slight underdogs (although not in the same league as his period feats).

The post however was regarding Guardiola quality as a manager and his inability to ever win from any position other than clear favourites. That is a clear irrefutable fact. Mourinho has won several times whilst being the underdog so that could never be levelled at him.

Does it matter from a managerial greatness or overall ability point of view? In my view it does. Part of what made Fergie great is what he did in Scotland and how he transformed United.

Every discussion in this thread seems to turn into a competition between Pep and Jose. The highlighted point I don't believe is true, since at the start of his career he brought Barca back from a tough position and over a season or two swapped out players he didn't want for the players in the B side he did.

For the record I'm not some Pep fanboy. My opinion is that he unquestionably had a very good (arguably one of the greatest) group of players at his disposal at Barca. I don't think those achievements make him the greatest manager of all time but I do acknowledge that having the players is all well and good, but to create what he did in terms of style and pure winning ability bordering on dominance deserves enormous credit.

At Bayern I personally think he underachieved. I think he over complicates things and I think that unless he addresses that weakness he'll never really crack the code in the PL. I may be right - but I also might be wrong because great managers become great managers by adjusting to whats thrown at them.

Modern football seems to be about instant success to some people. Clearly, when a new manager comes in with the intention of building a side playing a totally different style that will take time. He's been given that time, he's now got his own players and therefore has no more excuses if he doesn't have success.

Bottom line for me, you can't write him off after 3 games. Nor can those on here who seem to be bullish about United assume all will continue as it has.

 

[Treble]

My criticisms of his first season at City: most of his signings were poor/inedequate.

1. Was right to dump Hart but Bravo managed to be worse than Hart.
2. Had to find a top CB and signed Stones who could become a good defender one day but is average now.
3. Had to sign a top CM as Fernandinho and Toure are a bit past it. Gundogan was a very risky decision and did not pay off.
4. Needed a winger since Navas was poor. Nolito wasn't a good option.

Only Sane and Jesus were successful signings. Little wonder then that City disappointed.

 

[Dion]

I've not denied they were emerging as a talented group, i just don't see why people are so set on denying Guardiola's influence upon the style of their play, and the subsequent fulfillment of that talent. Zidane has took Madrid to a different level of performance and consistency, and is currently overseeing an ongoing period of Madrid dominance. Yet, that team was saturated with talent when he inherited it, but (applying the same reasoning as being used against Pep) he apparently doesn't deserve much credit for implementing a different style of play upon a group of extremely talented players and getting the best out of them. He already had a group of experienced and extremely talented players, who were already well established as a top team, which was obviously well advanced to what Pep inherited. So should Zidane get the credit due to him, or is he even less deserving than Pep?

It's just bizarre reasoning to me. Any coach who gets a team playing like Barca did and winning trophies galore while doing it, deserves due credit. Why would anybody even want to criticize a coach for regularly getting the best out of the players at his disposal and winning Barca numerous titles and trophies?

Zidane is a very good manager, so is Guardiola. They don't get "no credit", they just don't get credit for inventing a style of play and revolutionising the game.

 

[finneh]

Every discussion in this thread seems to turn into a competition between Pep and Jose. The highlighted point I don't believe is true, since at the start of his career he brought Barca back from a tough position and over a season or two swapped out players he didn't want for the players in the B side he did.

For the record I'm not some Pep fanboy. My opinion is that he unquestionably had a very good (arguably one of the greatest) group of players at his disposal at Barca. I don't think those achievements make him the greatest manager of all time but I do acknowledge that having the players is all well and good, but to create what he did in terms of style and pure winning ability bordering on dominance deserves enormous credit.

At Bayern I personally think he underachieved. I think he over complicates things and I think that unless he addresses that weakness he'll never really crack the code in the PL. I may be right - but I also might be wrong because great managers become great managers by adjusting to whats thrown at them.

Modern football seems to be about instant success to some people. Clearly, when a new manager comes in with the intention of building a side playing a totally different style that will take time. He's been given that time, he's now got his own players and therefore has no more excuses if he doesn't have success.

Bottom line for me, you can't write him off after 3 games. Nor can those on here who seem to be bullish about United assume all will continue as it has.

In truth I didn't want to turn it into a Pep vs Mourinho debate, however turning it into a Guardiola vs Fergie appeared to be far more cynical, given the latter has ticked every possible box of managerial greatness.

I also do believe that Guardiola deserves huge credit in some regards. If it was his decision to dispose of a somewhat poisonous Rijkaard core then absolutely fair play to him.

However I do believe that success doesn't happen in a vacuum and has to be contextualised. Pep didn't choose to have the greatest base to work with of any manager ever, however he can only be judged in that context. Is that harsh? Not really. You can only be judged by the situation you're in and luckily for Pep he was in the easiest situation imaginable. Most people would say that the son of a billionaire doubling his father's fortune isn't akin to a pauper building a billion pound empire, which I'd agree with.

Likewise Guardiola shouldn't be written off. However in my view the first season of his managerial career where you could judge him by his success was last season and in that season by every barometer he clearly failed. If he wins the Champions League this season I will be the first on here to laud his achievements. However if as odds on favourites at the start of the campaign he wins the league and does nothing else, to me that will be par for the course in the context of this season.

However that's the burden you bear by picking the easy option. If your career has involved starting management with one of the best teams ever, migrating to the next best team in the world as they're hitting their peak and currently managing one of the two teams in world football with an unlimited budget and within 12 months signing an entire new first team with interest... You aren't going to be talked about alongside managers who've not only won trophies in a far more onerous environment, but managers who've actually fundamentally changed a club.

You see managers that year after year exceed expectations and as a reward get another uphill, thankless task as their next job offer. Guardiola isn't in that category for me. He's alongside the likes of Allegri, not the likes of Fergie or even Ancelotti or Klopp.

That's not to say he shouldn't get credit. Just like Allardyce should get great credit for keeping doomed teams in the Premier League or Zidane should get credit for taking by far the best squad in the world to multiple league titles. However context is the key word in these discussions.

 

[apotheosis]

Zidane is a very good manager, so is Guardiola. They don't get "no credit", they just don't get credit for inventing a style of play and revolutionising the game.

Nor should they, credit where it's due is all i am suggesting either deserves. It just smacks of people looking for a reason to disregard their current achievements because they haven't yet proven they can replicate their success elsewhere.

Even if Pep or Zidane don't reproduce their early successes elsewhere, that only proves that they are not as good as some speculatively claimed them to be. But i still don't see why that should be used as a means to discredit their previous successes. They did what they did, and deserve credit for that. Judge their future performance accordingly, but however it goes, i don't see it as relevant to his previous performances.

 

[RedRover]

In truth I didn't want to turn it into a Pep vs Mourinho debate, however turning it into a Guardiola vs Fergie appeared to be far more cynical, given the latter has ticked every possible box of managerial greatness.

I also do believe that Guardiola deserves huge credit in some regards. If it was his decision to dispose of a somewhat poisonous Rijkaard core then absolutely fair play to him.

However I do believe that success doesn't happen in a vacuum and has to be contextualised. Pep didn't choose to have the greatest base to work with of any manager ever, however he can only be judged in that context. Is that harsh? Not really. You can only be judged by the situation you're in and luckily for Pep he was in the easiest situation imaginable. Most people would say that the son of a billionaire doubling his father's fortune isn't akin to a pauper building a billion pound empire, which I'd agree with.

Likewise Guardiola shouldn't be written off. However in my view the first season of his managerial career where you could judge him by his success was last season and in that season by every barometer he clearly failed. If he wins the Champions League this season I will be the first on here to laud his achievements. However if as odds on favourites at the start of the campaign he wins the league and does nothing else, to me that will be par for the course in the context of this season.

However that's the burden you bear by picking the easy option. If your career has involved starting management with one of the best teams ever, migrating to the next best team in the world as they're hitting their peak and currently managing one of the two teams in world football with an unlimited budget and within 12 months signing an entire new first team with interest... You aren't going to be talked about alongside managers who've not only won trophies in a far more onerous environment, but managers who've actually fundamentally changed a club.

You see managers that year after year exceed expectations and as a reward get another uphill, thankless task as their next job offer. Guardiola isn't in that category for me. He's alongside the likes of Allegri, not the likes of Fergie or even Ancelotti or Klopp.

That's not to say he shouldn't get credit. Just like Allardyce should get great credit for keeping doomed teams in the Premier League or Zidane should get credit for taking by far the best squad in the world to multiple league titles. However context is the key word in these discussions.

That's the context you're choosing to put on it. Would all of those players have got the chance at Barca under another manager? Would they have achieved as much as they did playing in another system? Would some of the other players he brought in - Mascherano is one that springs to mind immediately, have achieved what they have elsewhere? That's unknown but my view on successful teams that keep on winning is that there are lots of different factors that unite to create whatever magic they have and that it takes a special manager to bring that all together. Any suggestion that any decent manager could achieve what he did with those players is just something I don't accept.

He played a different way and for a few years nobody (even the great managers) could live with it in Spain or in Europe. How many managers have done that and enjoyed that dominance? Things have moved on as they always do, he may have been "worked out" but he may also come up with something else that works. My opinion is it's far too early to tell.

Are their questions to be answered? Of course - but he's 46 years old and as such may (if he chooses) have another 20 years in the game and may answer those questions. At City he will be judged on his teams performances and the trophies he wins. What if they win the title this year? Or the European Cup?

While other managers are being mentioned, the criticism that he takes the "easy way out" could be leveled at any top manager. Obviously the vast majority of managers start at a smaller club - he didn't, but since then Mourinho (as an example) has managed massive clubs and spent big money. Ancelotti likewise. Conte managed a Juve side that was far and away the best and richest in the league at that time and his next club have just let him spend £150 plus million. It's exactly what you would expect from top managers in the modern game. When did a manager at the top of his game with the ability to get the biggest jobs say "no thanks, I want to prove I can win the league with a club on a shoe string budget"?

You might say that the easiest thing to do would have been to stay where he was, at least in the short term and win more trophies with that great team he had, or retire. Instead, he's put his ideals and reputation on the line well aware that if he doesn't do it, his reputation will be tarnished because a hell of a lot off people would love for him to fail so they can consider themselves cleverer than the rest for not "buying into the myth".

You have your opinion, fair enough. I wont try to change it. My view, was and is that whilst I think he's foolish for how he's trying to play the game at the moment, if he gets past that, realises what the PL is about things click, then he may be very successful indeed.

 

[apotheosis]

That's the context you're choosing to put on it. Would all of those players have got the chance at Barca under another manager? Would they have achieved as much as they did playing in another system? Would some of the other players he brought in - Mascherano is one that springs to mind immediately, have achieved what they have elsewhere? That's unknown but my view on successful teams that keep on winning is that there are lots of different factors that unite to create whatever magic they have and that it takes a special manager to bring that all together. Any suggestion that any decent manager could achieve what he did with those players is just something I don't accept.

He played a different way and for a few years nobody (even the great managers) could live with it in Spain or in Europe. How many managers have done that and enjoyed that dominance? Things have moved on as they always do, he may have been "worked out" but he may also come up with something else that works. My opinion is it's far too early to tell.

Are their questions to be answered? Of course - but he's 46 years old and as such may (if he chooses) have another 20 years in the game and may answer those questions. At City he will be judged on his teams performances and the trophies he wins. What if they win the title this year? Or the European Cup?

While other managers are being mentioned, the criticism that he takes the "easy way out" could be leveled at any top manager. Obviously the vast majority of managers start at a smaller club - he didn't, but since then Mourinho (as an example) has managed massive clubs and spent big money. Ancelotti likewise. Conte managed a Juve side that was far and away the best and richest in the league at that time and his next club have just let him spend £150 plus million. It's exactly what you would expect from top managers in the modern game. When did a manager at the top of his game with the ability to get the biggest jobs say "no thanks, I want to prove I can win the league with a club on a shoe string budget"?

You might say that the easiest thing to do would have been to stay where he was, at least in the short term and win more trophies with that great team he had, or retire. Instead, he's put his ideals and reputation on the line well aware that if he doesn't do it, his reputation will be tarnished because a hell of a lot off people would love for him to fail so they can consider themselves cleverer than the rest for not "buying into the myth".

You have your opinion, fair enough. I wont try to change it. My view, was and is that whilst I think he's foolish for how he's trying to play the game at the moment, if he gets past that, realises what the PL is about things click, then he may be very successful indeed.

Great post that.

 

[finneh]

Are their questions to be answered? Of course - but he's 46 years old and as such may (if he chooses) have another 20 years in the game and may answer those questions. At City he will be judged on his teams performances and the trophies he wins. What if they win the title this year? Or the European Cup?

This I 100% agree with and somewhat addressed in my previous post. This season he went into the campaign as odds on title favourites so in my view that wouldn't be a huge achievement, somewhat "par for the course".

However they are still underdogs when it comes to the Champions League, so if he were to win that trophy I'd be eating a large slice of humble pie.

Likewise he has years to achieve things in a more difficult context. However I get the feeling that he's not looking for a great challenge. Maybe he'll prove me wrong but I can see him somewhere like Juventus next before possibly managing Spain. Fair play to him if he does but he'll find it extraordinarily difficult to stand out as a great manager solely in those environments.

 

[Treble]

This I 100% agree with and somewhat addressed in my previous post. This season he went into the campaign as odds on title favourites so in my view that wouldn't be a huge achievement, somewhat "par for the course".

However they are still underdogs when it comes to the Champions League, so if he were to win that trophy I'd be eating a large slice of humble pie.

Likewise he has years to achieve things in a more difficult context. However I get the feeling that he's not looking for a great challenge. Maybe he'll prove me wrong but I can see him somewhere like Juventus next before possibly managing Spain. Fair play to him if he does but he'll find it extraordinarily difficult to stand out as a great manager solely in those environments.

What would be a great challenge? To go to Spurs or Everton or Valencia and win the league with them?

City are a great challenge for Guardiola for two reasons. First, their squad wasn't anywhere near the quality he had at Barca and Bayern. Worse, it was past it and had to be rejuvenated in many positions inlcuding the bench options. Instead of concentrating on signing several big stars, they have to revamp the whole squad. Second, City are very rich but so are at least 5 other clubs and the competition for world class players is incredible right now. Even after they threw a lot of money on new players it is not clear that even one City player would start for Real Madrid. The gap in quality is staggering. How isn't that a big challenge? If Guardiola had inherited a very good squad that needed only 3-4 world class players to compete with Madrid and Bayern, then yes, the City challenge wouldn't be great. But the situation is very different.

They are favourites to win the EPL because many fans and pundits are impressed by the money they invested. Personally, I do not think that their first XI is obviously better than Chelsea's or United's. Many United fans seem to think that United's first XI is no less good, maybe even better than City's!

 

[finneh]

What would be a great challenge? To go to Spurs or Everton or Valencia and win the league with them?

City are a great challenge for Guardiola for two reasons. First, their squad wasn't anywhere near the quality he had at Barca and Bayern. Worse, it was past it and had to be rejuvenated in many positions inlcuding the bench options. Instead of concentrating on signing several big stars, they have to revamp the whole squad. Second, City are very rich but so are at least 5 other clubs and the competition for world class players is incredible right now. Even after they threw a lot of money on new players it is not clear that even one City player would start for Real Madrid. The gap in quality is staggering. How isn't that a big challenge? If Guardiola had inherited a very good squad that needed only 3-4 world class players to compete with Madrid and Bayern, then yes, the City challenge wouldn't be great. But the situation is very different.

They are favourites to win the EPL because many fans and pundits are impressed by the money they invested. Personally, I do not think that their first XI is obviously better than Chelsea's or United's. Many United fans seem to think that United's first XI is no less good, maybe even better than City's!

There's a middle ground somewhere between the best squads in the world as he had at Barcelona/Bayern or an unlimited budget as he has at City, compared with a big club who has a large but limited budget who are in need of revitalisation.

Even if he returned to Barcelona in a few years with Xavi/Puyol/Alves gone and with Pique/Iniesta/Messi/Suarez aging it would be a completely different challenge to the one he inherited in 2008 in my view. He'd have a large but not limitless budget and have a good but not unbeatable squad of players. The role would require smart signings, varied tactics dependant on the strength of opposition and motivation of players to outperform their technical abilities. These are all traits that I don't believe he's ever shown as a manager.

At City he binned a good goalkeeper in favour of a worse one, then because he couldn't get more out of the replacement, signed another replacement a year later. He signed a player like Nolito and likewise binned him after a year in favour of the next big money signing in Silva (trying also for Sanchez). He signed Stones as a player who perfectly fitted his system and the player looks to have regressed under his management.

They are the favourites to win the league as he's bought a full new team for £400m in 14 months. He's bought 2 new goalkeepers for over £50m, four new defenders for £180m, 3 new midfielders for £110m and a new striker for £30m (whilst at the same time binning two very talented academy players because they needed a little bit of patience). If he can't win the league whilst cherry picking an entire team of superstars from across the planet then he's a failure in every sense if the word. The owners won't be judging him by PL titles for that kind of investment, they've had managers win those trophies with a fraction of the investment. They'll be judging him by CL trophies and rightly so.

 

[Treble]

There's a middle ground somewhere between the best squads in the world as he had at Barcelona/Bayern or an unlimited budget as he has at City, compared with a big club who has a large but limited budget who are in need of revitalisation.

Even if he returned to Barcelona in a few years with Xavi/Puyol/Alves gone and with Pique/Iniesta/Messi/Suarez aging it would be a completely different challenge to the one he inherited in 2008 in my view. He'd have a large but not limitless budget and have a good but not unbeatable squad of players. The role would require smart signings, varied tactics dependant on the strength of opposition and motivation of players to outperform their technical abilities. These are all traits that I don't believe he's ever shown as a manager.

At City he binned a good goalkeeper in favour of a worse one, then because he couldn't get more out of the replacement, signed another replacement a year later. He signed a player like Nolito and likewise binned him after a year in favour of the next big money signing in Silva (trying also for Sanchez). He signed Stones as a player who perfectly fitted his system and the player looks to have regressed under his management.

They are the favourites to win the league as he's bought a full new team for £400m in 14 months. He's bought 2 new goalkeepers for over £50m, four new defenders for £180m, 3 new midfielders for £110m and a new striker for £30m (whilst at the same time binning two very talented academy players because they needed a little bit of patience). If he can't win the league whilst cherry picking an entire team of superstars from across the planet then he's a failure in every sense if the word. The owners won't be judging him by PL titles for that kind of investment, they've had managers win those trophies with a fraction of the investment. They'll be judging him by CL trophies and rightly so.

Most of his siginigs last season were poor, no doubt. If the signings this season disappoint, then that will be that. He will probalby leave at the end of the season if there are no clear signs of significant progress.

400M sounds like an icredible sum thrown on players but it isn't all that in today's market when you start from a squad that is generally past it (when compared to the very best). It buys you a Neymar and a Mbappe. That's it. If you have class players in all positions except attack and then sign two fantastic talents like Neymar and Mbappe, then you are a total failure if you don't win at least the domestic title. But the situation is a bit different as City had to change half of their squad over the last 2 transfer windows. You can't afford to buy Neymar because you need to reinforce many positons at once and not only the atack.

I don't have the numbers now but is City's squad more expensive than Jose's? Would Jose be a total flop if he failed to win the league with one of the most expensive squads in the history of football?

Let's not pretend that Jose wasn't a complete failure in the league last season. He added to LVG's team Zlatan, Pogba, Mkhi and Bailly and finished 6th! The league campaign was an unmitigated catastrophe. Unlike Guardiola, Jose made excellent signings but failed at creating a team strong enough to compete in the league. It's great that the team won 2 trophies but the competiton for them was significantly worse than the competiton for the top 4 in the league.

 

[cyberman]

There should be a rule where you can't mention Jose in a Guardiola thread.
Feck me it's as tedious as Messi v Ronaldo

 

[finneh]

Most of his siginigs last season were poor, no doubt. If the signings this season disappoint, then that will be that. He will probalby leave at the end of the season if there are no clear signs of significant progress.

400M sounds like an icredible sum thrown on players but it isn't all that in today's market when you start from a squad that is generally past it (when compared to the very best). It buys you a Neymar and a Mbappe. That's it. If you have class players in all positions except attack and then sign two fantastic talents like Neymar and Mbappe, then you are a total failure if you don't win at least the domestic title. But the situation is a bit different as City had to change half of their squad over the last 2 transfer windows. You can't afford to buy Neymar because you need to reinforce many positons at once and not only the atack.

I don't have the numbers now but is City's squad more expensive than Jose's? Would Jose be a total flop if he failed to win the league with one of the most expensive squads in the history of football?

Let's not pretend that Jose wasn't a complete failure in the league last season. He added to LVG's team Zlatan, Pogba, Mkhi and Bailly and finished 6th! The league campaign was an unmitigated catastrophe. Unlike Guardiola, Jose made excellent signings but failed at creating a team strong enough to compete in the league. It's great that the team won 2 trophies but the competiton for them was significantly worse than the competiton for the top 4 in the league.

£400m is an insane amount in 14 months however you slice it. Even moreso when you realise that they were in for Sanchez as well who'd have cost another £70m.

They've broken world records for different positions 4 times in just over a year. By anyone's definition they are spending an incredible amount of money.

As above I don't want to get into a Jose vs Pep debate but in answer to your question Guardiola has spent 30% more than Jose, but if the latter doesn't finish second behind City he also would deserve criticism.

 

[Treble]

There should be a rule where you can't mention Jose in a Guardiola thread.
Feck me it's as tedious as Messi v Ronaldo

When you criticise the manager of your rival you should make sure that your criticisms do not apply to the manager of your team. Otherwise, they do not hold water (unless you are critical of your own manager).

BTW, this thread is another proof why the caf is the best football forum. Only here you can see United fans defending the manager of City/Liverpool from OTT (according to them) criticisms. The desire to overcome tribalist evaluations of your rivals is a great quality of this forum.

 

[Treble]

£400m is an insane amount in 14 months however you slice it. Even moreso when you realise that they were in for Sanchez as well who'd have cost another £70m.

They've broken world records for different positions 4 times in just over a year. By anyone's definition they are spending an incredible amount of money.

As above I don't want to get into a Jose vs Pep debate but in answer to your question Guardiola has spent 30% more than Jose, but if the latter doesn't finish second behind City he also would deserve criticism.

Both should compete for the league. If they allow Chelsea/Spurs/Liverpool to overtake them, then that would be a failure. 400M are a lot of money, of course. No excuses anymore.

 

[finneh]

Both should compete for the league. If they allow Chelsea/Spurs/Liverpool to overtake them, then that would be a failure. 400M are a lot of money, of course. No excuses anymore.

Agreed. If United finish behind anyone but City it'll be a poor season and Jose will deserve critisicm (unless he finished 3rd and wins multiple other trophies).

My only slight difference is I believe Pep will deserve criticism if he fails to either win the PL or CL. Even an FA Cup and League Cup double whilst finishing second in the league I think would be a somewhat disappointing season. Such are the standards his spending has created.

 

[cyberman]

@Treble
Mourinho could have led us to 15th last year and it wouldn't alter Peps successes or failures at City.
Its not necessary yet it always creeps into Pep or Citys threads. We know posters can seperate the two since this rarely happens in a Jose thread yet people can't defend Pep without dragging Jose into it.

 

[Treble]

@Treble
Mourinho could have led us to 15th last year and it wouldn't alter Peps successes or failures at City.
Its not necessary yet it always creeps into Pep or Citys threads. We know posters can seperate the two since this rarely happens in a Jose thread yet people can't defend Pep without dragging Jose into it.

It's only natural to compare them though. Both manage two of the richest clubs in the world after managing Real and Barca, both took over struggling teams (4th and 5th with the same amount of points - 66). Both failed in the league in their first seasons. Jose was more successful overall though due to both trophies. Comparisions are inevitable.

 

[I Believe]

Perhaps the only fair criticism of Pep at this point is like many other foreign managers coming into the PL for the first time, he underestimated what he would require to succeed.
That said, like many others, I think the owners have brought Pep in for one thing and that is to win the CL, the PL is not the top priority, as long as City finish in the top four of the PL and are seen to make progress in the CL (reaching later stages or even a final) he will retain their backing. However their patience will not last forever and I suspect this season the Sheikh will want to see much more significant progress in the CL.
Reading between the lines, Pep probably has a 3 to 4 year window of opportunity, beyond that from 2020 onwards City executives are already succession planning for the post Pep era!

 

[JoaquinJoaquin]

Funny thing was that a few years ago after watching his Barca teams and reading the book about him written by Balague I was actually convinced that he was some sort of tactical genius and that he was set to be the next Fergie. But since then I have been massively underwhelmed and can't help but think it was more of a 'good place, right time' situation with Barcelona in why he was so successful. At City he has resorted to throwing money around in the hope of success and has shown absolutely no faith at all in youth players. They will most likely win the league this season and he will be lauded as a messiah but i'm not convinced. If City don't win it he should and probably will be sacked.