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

[Laurentiu amt]

@padr81 While I do agree that PEp and Jose are almost at the same level, Jose inches it for me.

But to say that he inherited a very strong inter is out of this world. Compared with the other teams in the competition Inter were, back then, like Spurs are like now. Don't use an argument that doesn't make sense in a dispute just to bias an opinion, it's not fair or accurate.

Pep still has a lot to prove. He had 3 of the best ever players in their prime @BARCA and won a dubious first CL with them. He had the 2nd best squad on the planet @Bayern, failed miserably. The same team played the best football on the planet imo under Jupp Heynckes and absolutely humiliated Barcelona, moped the floor with them like nobody did it before.

His first 2 seasons at Barca were okay in terms of playing beautiful attacking football. His last two became Messi winning games in 25 minutes and in the other 75 Barca passing sideways.

His seasons at Bayern were 90 minute sideways passing exercises. While I did absolutely love his first two seasons at Barca, I hated all of the others, simply boring football. Take Messi out of that team and they would've been feked. Remember when Messi got injured at the start of the season for about 6-7 games? When everybody panicked? That was the true Barca face without Messi.

Did you see what happened when he got a similar squad at Bayern but without the mefking dribbling star of all time> -> Boring, under performing football.


While Pep's teams play beautiful football at times, it gets boring, especially when the team starts to tire and to stop playing like he instructs it. His football idea is brilliant, but, in terms of trophies and winning things, Jose is far superior. You can't compare winning with Barca in that period, with the greatest ever player, with Bayern in a 1 horse league to what Jose did in different championships, you just can't.

 

[kouroux]

@padr81 While I do agree that PEp and Jose are almost at the same level, Jose inches it for me.

But to say that he inherited a very strong inter is out of this world. Compared with the other teams in the competition Inter were, back then, like Spurs are like now. Don't use an argument that doesn't make sense in a dispute just to bias an opinion, it's not fair or accurate.

Pep still has a lot to prove. He had 3 of the best ever players in their prime @BARCA and won a dubious first CL with them. He had the 2nd best squad on the planet @Bayern, failed miserably. The same team played the best football on the planet imo under Jupp Heynckes and absolutely humiliated Barcelona, moped the floor with them like nobody did it before.

His first 2 seasons at Barca were okay in terms of playing beautiful attacking football. His last two became Messi winning games in 25 minutes and in the other 75 Barca passing sideways.

His seasons at Bayern were 90 minute sideways passing exercises. While I did absolutely love his first two seasons at Barca, I hated all of the others, simply boring football. Take Messi out of that team and they would've been feked. Remember when Messi got injured at the start of the season for about 6-7 games? When everybody panicked? That was the true Barca face without Messi.

Did you see what happened when he got a similar squad at Bayern but without the mefking dribbling star of all time> -> Boring, under performing football.


While Pep's teams play beautiful football at times, it gets boring, especially when the team starts to tire and to stop playing like he instructs it. His football idea is brilliant, but, in terms of trophies and winning things, Jose is far superior. You can't compare winning with Barca in that period, with the greatest ever player, with Bayern in a 1 horse league to what Jose did in different championships, you just can't.

This is stupidly OTT.

 

[MDFC Manager]

This thread is going well..

 

[Womp]

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.

Using players like Delph and Foden to make a point is similar to using TFM, Gomes and Mitchell for Jose. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that.

As I mentioned - look at the difference in quality between the 6 players. Aguero who has been one of, if not the best striker in the Prem since joining, Sterling who is a very good player (who would be sat on the bench if Sanchez came), Kompany and Silva who are amongst the best in the league in their positions and have been for a while. As a comparison, Mourinho is utilising players like Fellaini and Lingard who have became a meme in the football community, he's used the available players better and hasn't replaced nearly as many as them.

Let's compare both teams' squads in their last league game - The United squad had DDG, Valencia, Darmian, Jones, Mata, Rashford, Martial, Lingard and Herrera who was handed down to him, all involved in the game.

As a comparison City had - Aguero, Silva, Sterling, Fernandinho, KDB and Ota. Granted Kompany was injured, ill give him to you just for arguments sake, that's still short. Jose is utilising those players more to greater effect.

For further dissection let's see how many actual players from the previous regimes are left under both managers - going back two games City have had a total of 8 in the Watford game and 8 in the Liverpool game (one being Foden who was never going to get any game time against Liverpool anyway).

To compare United have had - 13 in the Stoke game and 13 in the Leicester game.

To summarise not only has Jose more old players in his squads but has also been actually playing them more. Granted it's only 50% of the League matches but I'm on my phone and cba going back any further to check. I'm assuming the prior games also follow a similar trajectory.

Not to add - Pep has bought in 10 players to Mourinho who has bought in 6. (Discounting Ibra and Nolito)

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

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.

It was a dominant season considering the records they broke and the team they beat out for the league. That was my entire point.

His entire stint at Real was not dominant though.

 

[ivaldo]

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.

Come on now, don't beat around the bush, you and I both know it would be a massive suprise if City went on to win it. And if they did so yud be giving Pep huge credit for beating the odds, and rightly so.

Marginal underdogs? Are you for real? There were at least three teams markedly better than Inter including what many consider the greatest collection of players of all time. You're seriously stretching to downplay champions league wins now aren't you?

Pep of course deserves credit for his successes, I wouldn't suggest otherwise but at the time of his arrival no one knew what he had lurking at the club. If they knew he had the greatest player ever and the best midfield ever do you think they wouldn't have been favourites? You can dress it up any way you like he was still given an incredible leg up at Barca with the players he inherited. He made made bold decisions but the crux of the team was already there ready and waiting. There is absolutely no escaping the fact he has had the best at his disposal at his last two clubs and the best in the league at City, even before he spent half a billion.

Are you really comparing inheriting Messi, Xavi, Bus and Iniesta to that Inter side? Is that a comparison you honestly think should be made?

 

[RooneyLegend]

Imo people are so stuck in the past they can't see what's happening as of right now. IMO Jose's tactics have reached their sell by date and i can't see him winning as a title any time soon let alone turn us into an elite side in Europe.

 

[PepG]

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.

The style of Pep Guardiola is always the same - the positional play (Juego De Position). He adapts it and modifieds it to the strengths and qualities of his players. At Barca it was more centrally oriented with dominating midfield play. At Bayern he used more vertical variation of the positional play with more width and wing-play. Now at City his main force is the PACE of his strikers, wingers and fullbacks.

 

[Kapardin]

Imo people are so stuck in the past they can't see what's happening as of right now. IMO Jose's tactics have reached their sell by date and i can't see him winning as a title any time soon let alone turn us into an elite side in Europe.

And I suppose Klopp, Guardiola and Poch who have a grand total of feck all trophies between them in England and in Europe with their current clubs are killing it tactically?

 

[Treble]

I don't think they will walk it, way too early for that. What many seem to be missing here though is the style and approach of Pep's game. He is not lauded and worshipped because he won a lot, many have including our own Mourinho. He is lauded because his teams play the most dominant verging on humiliating football we have seen in recent years. If he wins the league with City in the same way Conte, Mancini, Mourinho did as in win a lot of close games, being solid and tough, nobody will laud Pep as anything special, he will be rightfully considered just another top manager. If he wins it by humiliating and dominating his rivals and registering some emphatic victories like he did with Barcelona and to a lesser extent Bayern, he will rightfully justify his reputation as an all time great. The argument of having great players is just ridiculous. People talk about Barcelona and Bayern having great players as though nobody else ever did. Plenty of teams have top players, how many win as consistently whilst making their rivals like small teams defending for their lives and hoping for the luck of set pieces? It is that aura that City paid good money for, not merely winning. We just have to hope he fails replicating that at City.

Indeed. His Barca team are one of the best teams of all time because of their style, not because they had several fantastic players. The step from a squad that had several extremely talented players and flopped the previos season to a team that played absolutely breathtaking football was HUGE. It is true that many top managers would have won titles witht this squad. But probably none of them would have created such a brilliant team. To call a manager who created one of the best football teams ever "a total fraud" beggars belief. Wtf? Show some class.

 

[Tosicsleftpeg]

Made a very good start this season absolutely hammering people as we have been. Going to be an interesting season as obviously the September form always fades away as soon as the weather turns and we start to see more trench warfare against the lower down sides in the division with the reason coming down and 10 at the back the games soon become a different story, whoever can cope better with that will win it.

 

[prtk0811]

You know what dont count out chelsea and conte yet. This is not a 2 horse race.

 

[Treble]

You know what dont count out chelsea and conte yet. This is not a 2 horse race.

Indeed. Chelsea will be strong in the league again. Not sure about the CL though.

 

[Janson]

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.

Well, they finished worse than second only once from 2004 to 2011, and that's despite all the instability with all the manager changes. Clearly they along with us always had the best teams in those years.

 

[Haddock]

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.

1. This is not a thread about Jose Mourinho or Antonio Conte. It's about Guardiola.
2. How is it 'clearly false' if he has bought (I am repeating myself) - two goalkeepers, a centre half, three fullbacks, two attacking midfielders, two wide forwards (one who has admittedly been sold now), a striker and a centre midfielder since the beginning of last season?

I didn't say he bought them to replace his entire team, but he has added the kind of squad depth only Madrid can match. So he really has no excuse this season.

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.

Ok let me attempt to tackle this ad hominem charge. I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to sign world class talent. That would be absurd but if he has signed £350 mn worth of talent in two transfer windows then he really ought to be winning the league or at least one trophy. Guardiola also has at his disposal by virtue of his spending, two first-rate players for each position. This is not a criticism, but it does mean that more is expected of him than, say, Klopp. Guardiola has for the first time, a team that while brilliant not invincible. Earlier he had

(a) At Barca - the best player since Luis Ronaldo, the best right back since Cafu, the best midfield partnership in a generation and four world class strikers - Henry, Eto'o, Ibrahimovic and Villa.
(b) At Bayern - It's Bayern for God's sakes!

Now I believe Guardiola was exceptional at Barca but he also had the good fortune to coach players who were entering their absolute peak and happened to be the best collection of players in a generation. At Bayern his achievement was excellent - he won three titles in a row. Unfortunately he was always going to be judged in light of Heynckes. Was it fair? No. For the first time in England, Guardiola has a top class side but competition from one more than one team in the league. The perception of Guardiola is that he is great at managing exceptional teams but not so good at merely 'good' teams. Now that he has spent so much money on players he deems fit to win a title - he will judged on his success or failure to do so. There is no higher standard, merely the standard of the average top-club manager. No one expects him to win the treble every season. But a trophy every season is common demand made not by me, but by the vast majority of a fan base/media. Alex Ferguson had the same pressure when he went three seasons without a trophy; the best sportswriter in England said his 'incompetence' was dragging the club down and he had stayed on too long. Top managers always find themselves under pressure. At his peak (2011) Guardiola's believers talked of him as the football messiah preaching Pepism and bringing enlightenment to the heathens. Is it any surprise that he's seen as a false prophet now? All top level managers are judged on their past success or their very presence at the world's best clubs.
For what it's worth, I think City will win the league comfortably because (a) Guardiola's tactics are good enough and (b) even if the tactics aren't good enough the players are too good individually to falter.

 

[Janson]

I don't think they will walk it, way too early for that. What many seem to be missing here though is the style and approach of Pep's game. He is not lauded and worshipped because he won a lot, many have including our own Mourinho. He is lauded because his teams play the most dominant verging on humiliating football we have seen in recent years. If he wins the league with City in the same way Conte, Mancini, Mourinho did as in win a lot of close games, being solid and tough, nobody will laud Pep as anything special, he will be rightfully considered just another top manager. If he wins it by humiliating and dominating his rivals and registering some emphatic victories like he did with Barcelona and to a lesser extent Bayern, he will rightfully justify his reputation as an all time great. The argument of having great players is just ridiculous. People talk about Barcelona and Bayern having great players as though nobody else ever did. Plenty of teams have top players, how many win as consistently whilst making their rivals like small teams defending for their lives and hoping for the luck of set pieces? It is that aura that City paid good money for, not merely winning. We just have to hope he fails replicating that at City.

Playing that kind of dominating possession football obviously has it's drawbacks as well. It will always leave you vulnerable at the back. You can have 90% possession and still concede from one of the clear cut opportunities you will inevitably give away by pressing like that.

These things are not as noticeable when you have the best team in the world, while also playing in a weaker league. But top counterattacking teams will take advantage of this, like Jose's Inter did and Chelsea under Hiddink.

You seem to think that winning while playing a certain way somehow makes you a superior thinker/tactician. In reality it's just the 3 points that count. You don't get extra points by scoring more goals or having more possession.

You say he isn't lauded for winning but for his playing style. Do you honestly believe he would be considered as one of the best without winning? Let's say Pep plays this way, dominating/humiliating teams for the next 3-4 years but finishing second on points every time while, let's say Conte actually wins the league every one of those years, mostly by 1-0 wins. Would you still think Conte is just another top manager, while Pep is some kind of Messiah for breaking goal and possession records?

 

[Mister_Stubbs]

City and Pep will go close this season, no doubt about it. That said, having spent a record amount of money in one transfer window it's to be expected and Pep is showing once again that he is nothing more than a glorified cheque book manager.

 

[Treble]

Playing that kind of dominating possession football obviously has it's drawbacks as well. It will always leave you vulnerable at the back. You can have 90% possession and still concede from one of the clear cut opportunities you will inevitably give away by pressing like that.

These things are not as noticeable when you have the best team in the world, while also playing in a weaker league. But top counterattacking teams will take advantage of this, like Jose's Inter did and Chelsea under Hiddink.

You seem to think that winning while playing a certain way somehow makes you a superior thinker/tactician. In reality it's just the 3 points that count. You don't get extra points by scoring more goals or having more possession.

You say he isn't lauded for winning but for his playing style. Do you honestly believe he would be considered as one of the best without winning? Let's say Pep plays this way, dominating/humiliating teams for the next 3-4 years but finishing second on points every time while, let's say Conte actually wins the league every one of those years, mostly by 1-0 wins. Would you still think Conte is just another top manager, while Pep is some kind of Messiah for breaking goal and possession records?

Not really. Teams that win and play beautiful football are regarded as way better than teams that just win.

There are several scenarios here:

1. Win big tropheys in great style.
2. Win big tropheys no matter how.
3. Play beautiful football but fail to win anything big.

1. is the best variant. This is why Brazil '70, Ajax in the 70s and Pep's Barcelona are often mentioned when people talk about the greatest teams ever.

2. is of course great.

3. is sometimes even better than 2. For instance, people still talk about Hungary in the 50s, Holland in '74 and Brazil in '82. These teams failed to win but are far more admired than, say, Greece who sensationally won Euro 04 or many other winners who weren't great to watch.

Football is not only about winning but also about entertaining: aesthetics matters.

 

[Manchester Dan]

City and Pep will go close this season, no doubt about it. That said, having spent a record amount of money in one transfer window it's to be expected and Pep is showing once again that he is nothing more than a glorified cheque book manager.

Yeah, that record net spend that came in lower than Uniteds.

 

[Mister_Stubbs]

Yeah, that record net spend that came in lower than Uniteds.

Who bloody cares about net spend?

Oh, and just a quick search on google I found this... http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/premier-league-net-spend-how-11091823 it reckons City net spend was higher but I guess they are lying?

 

[JASR]

Who bloody cares about net spend?

Oh, and just a quick search on google I found this... http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/premier-league-net-spend-how-11091823 it reckons City net spend was higher but I guess they are lying?

No, just failing to account for the 'undisclosed' values, e.g. Nasri - probably 3m - which , by itself, swings the net spend argument around. Plus Kolarov, Fernando, ntchem.

And the laughable Rooney 'free' - surely a 'negative transfer fee'.

... though as you say , who cares about Net spend, it's more to do with when the values are booked into the accounts and the 'headline' transfer value being spread over the period of the player contracts.

... so, Rooney (ha!) aside ... there's peanuts been taken off the annual accounts wage bill for United, but plenty added.

 

[padr81]

Come on now, don't beat around the bush, you and I both know it would be a massive suprise if City went on to win it. And if they did so yud be giving Pep huge credit for beating the odds, and rightly so.

Marginal underdogs? Are you for real? There were at least three teams markedly better than Inter including what many consider the greatest collection of players of all time. You're seriously stretching to downplay champions league wins now aren't you?

Pep of course deserves credit for his successes, I wouldn't suggest otherwise but at the time of his arrival no one knew what he had lurking at the club. If they knew he had the greatest player ever and the best midfield ever do you think they wouldn't have been favourites? You can dress it up any way you like he was still given an incredible leg up at Barca with the players he inherited. He made made bold decisions but the crux of the team was already there ready and waiting. There is absolutely no escaping the fact he has had the best at his disposal at his last two clubs and the best in the league at City, even before he spent half a billion.

Are you really comparing inheriting Messi, Xavi, Bus and Iniesta to that Inter side? Is that a comparison you honestly think should be made?

It wouldn't be a massive surprise, winning a competition where only three teams are more fancied than you is not a massive surprise. Was Arsenal winning the FA Cup a massive surprise?
I'm not downlplaying it at all. Moratti (the man pumping the money and who brought Jose in) brought him in for the fact he wanted the CL and believed they had the squad to do it. He done brilliantly to win it, no one is denying that.

So no one knew what was at Barca. He inherited the best player of all time and Xavi. Tell me again, was Xavi the best midfielder in the world pre-Pep? He was what 28? Not even in the discussions for best CM in the world (albeit regarded as a very good one) but Pep gets no credit for him right (because to quote your good self "No one knew what he had lurking at the club."?

Were they or were they not underdogs in every competition that season? By mid season they were boosted to 2nd favourites that is how much on an impact Pep had on Barca.
Pep added Pique, Dani Alves, Villa, Mascherano and promoted Sergio. Thats half a team right there, are you telling me they weren't key players? You can maybe argue on Villa but the other 3 are going down in Barca history.

Where have I compared Messi, Xavi and Iniesta etc... to Inter Milan? Please show me where I have... You're reaching there mate..

You said it was irrefutable that Pep was always at the best. He inherited a Barca side who finished with 67 points, got rid of Deco, Ronaldinho etc... and built his own team there.
Are we allowed undermine Fergies achievments because he "inherited" the class of 92? No because he made them what they were, just like Pep made Barca.

Jose inherited alot of his dominant Chelsea side from Ranieri, should we belittle all his achievements there because of it.. I mean lets use your logic. Terry, Makelele, Lampard, Cole, Duff, Gallas, Gudjohnsen were all there and all made over 40 appearances in his first season. Not to mention players like Wayne Bridge, Glen Johnson who make 25 appearances each...
But again we can overlook that.

Lets take those mighty underdogs Inter and apply the logic of the squad being there you throw at Pep.

Julio Cesar, Maicon, Samuel, Chivu, Cambiasso, Toldo, Cordoba, Stankovic, Matetazzi, Balotelli. Just 10 Mancini players in Jose's CL winning squad. But Jose didn't inherit a CL winning squad he turned them into CL winners.
Pep on the other hand, he didn't turn the Barca players into CL winners, he inherited them yeah? Because whats fair for the current United manager isn't for everyone else?

 

[Varun]

Yeah, that record net spend that came in lower than Uniteds.

Mourinho is a cheque book manager too tbf. Not sure how spending marginally higher or lower than him makes any difference to the post you quoted.

 

[padr81]

Using players like Delph and Foden to make a point is similar to using TFM, Gomes and Mitchell for Jose. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that.

As I mentioned - look at the difference in quality between the 6 players. Aguero who has been one of, if not the best striker in the Prem since joining, Sterling who is a very good player (who would be sat on the bench if Sanchez came), Kompany and Silva who are amongst the best in the league in their positions and have been for a while. As a comparison, Mourinho is utilising players like Fellaini and Lingard who have became a meme in the football community, he's used the available players better and hasn't replaced nearly as many as them.

Let's compare both teams' squads in their last league game - The United squad had DDG, Valencia, Darmian, Jones, Mata, Rashford, Martial, Lingard and Herrera who was handed down to him, all involved in the game.

As a comparison City had - Aguero, Silva, Sterling, Fernandinho, KDB and Ota. Granted Kompany was injured, ill give him to you just for arguments sake, that's still short. Jose is utilising those players more to greater effect.

For further dissection let's see how many actual players from the previous regimes are left under both managers - going back two games City have had a total of 8 in the Watford game and 8 in the Liverpool game (one being Foden who was never going to get any game time against Liverpool anyway).

To compare United have had - 13 in the Stoke game and 13 in the Leicester game.

To summarise not only has Jose more old players in his squads but has also been actually playing them more. Granted it's only 50% of the League matches but I'm on my phone and cba going back any further to check. I'm assuming the prior games also follow a similar trajectory.

Not to add - Pep has bought in 10 players to Mourinho who has bought in 6. (Discounting Ibra and Nolito)

You mean to compare the same Delph who plays when availabe to a kid on loan at Crystal Palace. Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't noticed Gomes or Mitchell in match day squad this season or TFM (obviously because he's on loan).
Delph has been on the pitch for City and Foden has been in 2 or 3 squads.

So what you're saying in this is Pep didn't replace the players who didn't need replacing... and spent to supplement the talent he had.

Lets look at those United players indeed.
DDG - Best keeper in the league.
Valenica - According to the Caf best RB in the league last season.
Jones - Better than Otamendi according to the Caf too.
Mata - £40m player.
Rashford - One of the best youths in world football.
Martial - Future Balon D'Or winner according to this place before Jose's first season. Back to that form this season.
Lingard and Darmian - Very average players.

Pep has brought in 10 players to Joses 6 because he needed 10 players to fill positions that were let fade away under Pellers.
Jose has brought in players to United first team squad Zlatan, Lukaku, Pogba, Matic, Mkhitaryan, Lindelof and Bailly. Thats 4 much bigger stars than anyone Pep has signed.
Bar the last 2 that's 5 top class players because he needed to add big talent to solid players. Pep has need to add more solid talent to the top class players he had.

According to this place last season...

DDG > Bravo
Valencia > Zabaleta (actually best RB in the league according to the CAF)
Bailly > Stones
Jones > Otamendi
Shaw < Clichy
Herrera > Fernandinho (in fact he was better than Kante on here.)
Pogba > De Bruyne
Mkhi > Sterling
Rooney < Silva
Martial < Sane
Zlatan > Aguero

So United were better in 8 of 11 positions but it was Pep who inherited the better team. Thats the kind of Caf logic I don't understand....

The reality of Pep vs Jose this season is both have £650m squads. Neither can complain about there squads now, neither have excuses. Both clubs have a very similar net spend going in to this season...
Just like there is no failure option for Pep this season, there is also none for Jose. Nor should there be after the showings from both last season. One of their reputations will likely take a big hit this season. Which one its going to be is the fun part.

 

[serghei]

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.

No Pep team can play a 'very different style to his Barcelona side'. His Barcelona side is his style, and whatever changes he makes are not fundamental.

 

[ivaldo]

It wouldn't be a massive surprise, winning a competition where only three teams are more fancied than you is not a massive surprise. Was Arsenal winning the FA Cup a massive surprise?
I'm not downlplaying it at all. Moratti (the man pumping the money and who brought Jose in) brought him in for the fact he wanted the CL and believed they had the squad to do it. He done brilliantly to win it, no one is denying that.

So no one knew what was at Barca. He inherited the best player of all time and Xavi. Tell me again, was Xavi the best midfielder in the world pre-Pep? He was what 28? Not even in the discussions for best CM in the world (albeit regarded as a very good one) but Pep gets no credit for him right (because to quote your good self "No one knew what he had lurking at the club."?

Were they or were they not underdogs in every competition that season? By mid season they were boosted to 2nd favourites that is how much on an impact Pep had on Barca.
Pep added Pique, Dani Alves, Villa, Mascherano and promoted Sergio. Thats half a team right there, are you telling me they weren't key players? You can maybe argue on Villa but the other 3 are going down in Barca history.

Where have I compared Messi, Xavi and Iniesta etc... to Inter Milan? Please show me where I have... You're reaching there mate..

You said it was irrefutable that Pep was always at the best. He inherited a Barca side who finished with 67 points, got rid of Deco, Ronaldinho etc... and built his own team there.
Are we allowed undermine Fergies achievments because he "inherited" the class of 92? No because he made them what they were, just like Pep made Barca.

Jose inherited alot of his dominant Chelsea side from Ranieri, should we belittle all his achievements there because of it.. I mean lets use your logic. Terry, Makelele, Lampard, Cole, Duff, Gallas, Gudjohnsen were all there and all made over 40 appearances in his first season. Not to mention players like Wayne Bridge, Glen Johnson who make 25 appearances each...
But again we can overlook that.

Lets take those mighty underdogs Inter and apply the logic of the squad being there you throw at Pep.

Julio Cesar, Maicon, Samuel, Chivu, Cambiasso, Toldo, Cordoba, Stankovic, Matetazzi, Balotelli. Just 10 Mancini players in Jose's CL winning squad. But Jose didn't inherit a CL winning squad he turned them into CL winners.
Pep on the other hand, he didn't turn the Barca players into CL winners, he inherited them yeah? Because whats fair for the current United manager isn't for everyone else?

Just to clarify, you're comparing Arsenal winning the FA cup, a competition most teams don't even bother with until the latter stages, to winning the premier cup competition in world football?

you've repeatedly compared inter and Barca and you continue to do it now,its literally in your reply! So let me get this straight, you want to compare the two successes but you don't want to compare the players at their disposal. Makes complete sense...

Yes let's look at those players. Now can you tell me which squad of players you think is better? Which is the better achievement, winning the champions league with the greatest ever group of players, or beating that team to the trophy with a group of very good players? It's astonishing you keep trying to compare the two successes.

Ferguson did it over a period of 25 years, rebuilding his side again and again. Pep gave up because Jose broke him. He did it in a very competitive league, with a side that hasn't won the league since 1974. Despite the quality of Neville, Butt, Giggs, Scholes etc they are not and never will be considered some of the best players ever. Pep inherited the best midfield in the history of the game and one of if not the best player ever. At this point you're just throwing out random comparison and hope they stick.

You're repeatedly ignoring just how good the players Pep inherited were. He inherited THE BEST. Comparing them to bloody Mario Balotelli is crazy.

In terms of CVs there's really no competition.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Mourinho is a cheque book manager too tbf. Not sure how spending marginally higher or lower than him makes any difference to the post you quoted.

Agreed, they're both big spending managers, and neither would win this league without spending. That's the way it goes. A handful on here just forget that United spend a fortune as well and Pep isn't smashing transfer records at all. De Bruyne at £55m is still our record transfer and that was a bargain.

 

[Theonas]

Playing that kind of dominating possession football obviously has it's drawbacks as well. It will always leave you vulnerable at the back. You can have 90% possession and still concede from one of the clear cut opportunities you will inevitably give away by pressing like that.

These things are not as noticeable when you have the best team in the world, while also playing in a weaker league. But top counterattacking teams will take advantage of this, like Jose's Inter did and Chelsea under Hiddink.

Of course it has its drawbacks. When have you ever heard it doesn't? It is however the most difficult style of football to master and it has the highest chance of winning. By the simple act if having the ball, you automatically cannot concede and is the only one in a position to score. Of course it isn't an absolute formula that ensures 100% success rate but nothing does.

The very fact that you remember precisely those games where Barcelona's style failed is evidence enough of how dominant they were. When we reach a level with a team that their failures are so vividly remembered in their uniqueness, it tells you how they made overpowering and more often than not, humiliating their rivals seem so normal.

You seem to think that winning while playing a certain way somehow makes you a superior thinker/tactician. In reality it's just the 3 points that count. You don't get extra points by scoring more goals or having more possession.

Yes that's what it exactly does. The points tally does not show it but your place in football folklore, the history books, the universal admiration, etc ... does. You have every right and are entitled to think it's useless but you are wrong to assume your view is how everyone sees it. The big clubs win and they win often, it is not enough for them anymore. You think another title for Barcelona this year will make them perfectly satisfied? Look at Real now, they won back to back CLs, a feat other teams can only dream of and what was Zidane talking about early this season? He pointed out how they need to become more comfortable in their possession game so they can control games against even Barcelona. That's how he views greatness. The best clubs do not want to win, they want to be known as THE best and to be that, you do indeed need to play with the pro activeness and ego that demands having the ball and taking charge of your games the way Barcelona did better than everybody else. There is an argument though that in England, the rules are a bit different. There are more clubs capable of winning the league and winning it in itself is so difficult nowadays that none of our teams are in a position where they have look to establish themselves as the new Barcelona or Real. They are too preoccupied to even get in the CL to have any time to build a stylish team the way the Spanish can.

You say he isn't lauded for winning but for his playing style. Do you honestly believe he would be considered as one of the best without winning? Let's say Pep plays this way, dominating/humiliating teams for the next 3-4 years but finishing second on points every time while, let's say Conte actually wins the league every one of those years, mostly by 1-0 wins. Would you still think Conte is just another top manager, while Pep is some kind of Messiah for breaking goal and possession records?

Winning goes without saying. Of course if Pep doesn't win, he wouldn't even be part of the discussion. That's a moot point. In your hypothetical scenario, the discussion will be about criteria. I don't think there is such a thing as the "best" manager. I think it should always be accompanied by "at ..." because there hasn't been and will never be a manager who is great at everything. Mourinho for me for example is the best in the world and maybe history at winning with relatively inferior resources. Nobody in modern history could have won a treble with Porto and Inter like he did. No one can thoroughly prepare a team to block a superior opponent like he can which is what you need when your individual quality is inferior. Guardiola however is the best today and one of the all time greats at getting a team to make you look like they're playing with more men if that makes any sense to you. His teams can show a level of dominance that is just crazy in how good they are at controlling territory and space and at making you play to their tune. In that category, you have the likes of Michels, Sacchi and Cruyff. They all had different ideas and tactical ethos but they were all very successful at not only perfecting a singular vision but also influencing generations after them.

So to go back to your hypothetical scenario, you have to define your personal criteria. If you value consistency above all, Conte's scrappy titles obviously make him the best. Don't forget that Cruyff and Sacchi had very short careers relatively and won much less than so many and yet look at how highly they are viewed in European football. What do you think the reason for that.

 

[padr81]

Just to clarify, you're comparing Arsenal winning the FA cup, a competition most teams don't even bother with until the latter stages, to winning the premier cup competition in world football?

you've repeatedly compared inter and Barca and you continue to do it now,its literally in your reply! So let me get this straight, you want to compare the two successes but you don't want to compare the players at their disposal. Makes complete sense...

Yes let's look at those players. Now can you tell me which squad of players you think is better? Which is the better achievement, winning the champions league with the greatest ever group of players, or beating that team to the trophy with a group of very good players? It's astonishing you keep trying to compare the two successes.

Ferguson did it over a period of 25 years, rebuilding his side again and again. Pep gave up because Jose broke him. He did it in a very competitive league, with a side that hasn't won the league since 1974. Despite the quality of Neville, Butt, Giggs, Scholes etc they are not and never will be considered some of the best players ever. Pep inherited the best midfield in the history of the game and one of if not the best player ever. At this point you're just throwing out random comparison and hope they stick.

You're repeatedly ignoring just how good the players Pep inherited were. He inherited THE BEST. Comparing them to bloody Mario Balotelli is crazy.

In terms of CVs there's really no competition.

I'm comparing the 4th favourites in a competition winning it. I'm comparing a team who were around 10/1 to win said competition going and winning it. If anything Arsenal had to beat both City and Chelsea two superior teams to win the FA Cup. Inter were favourties in the final vs Bayern. They weren't plucky underdogs even considering there poor start to the campaign.

No I haven't repeatedly compared them. Its not sinking in so I'll say it again. I haven't compared their ability as footballers even once...
I have openly said Barca were the better team and players.

What I have said is by your logic. Pep gets a squad, changes half of it, wins (he inherited said team). Jose gets a squad, changes half of it, wins (he built said team).

Again show me all the discussions where Xavi was the best CM in the world before Pep. He was playing top level football for 7 years before Pep. Your presuming Xavi was at that level when Pep took over, he wasn't. You're presuming Iniesta was at that level.. he wasn't. Pep was what kicked that team on to be the GoaT, not the other way round.

They were top players but tell me once where a 27 year old Xavi and a 24 year old Iniesta were referred to as the undoubted best midfield in the world pre-Pep. Its only with hindsight we can say that. Was a 25 year old Xavi near the best midfielder in the world in 2006? Wasn't even in the discussions.

Fabregas was prefered to Iniesta in central midfield for Spain before Pep. 2008 Euros was a midfield 2 of Senna, Xavi and when they played a 3, Fabregas with Iniesta and David Silva as wingers.

Its very strange how a winger, a 27 year old midfielder (who wasn't considered near being the GoaT, albeit was name player of the tournament at the Euros) and a kid he promoted from the youths suddenly became the best midfield in the world and Pep wasn't responsible for it, simply lucky they were at the club and no one knew how good they were.

He made a top CB out of Mascherano, brought back Pique (and pundits used to call him a clown..). He turned a DM and so called poor CB into the centre backs for the GoaT team. He took a winger a good midfielder and a kid and made them the best midfield of all time.. but still people say he inherited that team.

Barcelona's players who featured in the Uefa team of the year before Pep were mainly Puyol, Eto'o and Ronaldinho. Xavi getting in on the back of a Euros and Messi obviously making his first appearance.

My issue is not that the teams were the same standard so I don't really know why you keep saying that or where you are pulling it from. Its you seem to have one rule for Pep (must build the entire squad) one for Jose (just half the squad is enough to merit him winning the CL).

When have I once compared a single Barca player to Balotelli...
While you on about comparing there CV's, how crazy was it before Pep? At the start of the 08/09 season.

You refuse to see Barca were underdogs in every competition in 08/09 even though they finished 18 points behind Real.
You are using hindsight from 2017 to look back on the football world from 2008-2011.

 

[ivaldo]

@padr81 i don't have the stamina to carry on so will leave it there. Good discussion though

 

[padr81]

@padr81 i don't have the stamina to carry on so will leave it there. Good discussion though

I agree, my hand is aching from all the typing. Two stubborn feckers. Ironically this all came about from me defending Jose lol.
Good 3 points today, tight at the top.

 

[ivaldo]

I agree, my hand is aching from all the typing. Two stubborn feckers. Ironically this all came about from me defending Jose lol.
Good 3 points today, tight at the top.

Yup. It's going to be a helluva season.

 

[RooneyLegend]

And I suppose Klopp, Guardiola and Poch who have a grand total of feck all trophies between them in England and in Europe with their current clubs are killing it tactically?

Well Pep looks like he's done building and has a side to as close to the elite clubs as you can get. Klopp still doesn't understand defending, Poch is up there despite not really having the backing compared to the others. I'm not all that impressed by winning second rate cups, we're Man United and should never lose sight of that.

 

[Kapardin]

Well Pep looks like he's done building and has a side to as close to the elite clubs as you can get. Klopp still doesn't understand defending, Poch is up there despite not really having the backing compared to the others. I'm not all that impressed by winning second rate cups, we're Man United and should never lose sight of that.

We were in no shape to win the league last season and it wasn't Jose's fault. van Gaal's squad was inadequate, Jose's signings weren't sufficient. The 2 lesser trophies were our only realistic chances of a successful season.

This season too, I feel Jose hasn't been backed sufficiently by the board. We are atleast one FB and one Winger short of winning the title. I think 2nd place and FA Cup as well as CL QFs would be a commendable season.

Regarding Poch, no-one expects him to win the title but surely he could have won a domestic cup by now. That he hasn't won a trophy is certainly a negative.

 

[RooneyLegend]

We were in no shape to win the league last season and it wasn't Jose's fault. van Gaal's squad was inadequate, Jose's signings weren't sufficient. The 2 lesser trophies were our only realistic chances of a successful season.

This season too, I feel Jose hasn't been backed sufficiently by the board. We are atleast one FB and one Winger short of winning the title. I think 2nd place and FA Cup as well as CL QFs would be a commendable season.

Regarding Poch, no-one expects him to win the title but surely he could have won a domestic cup by now. That he hasn't won a trophy is certainly a negative.

Why weren't his signings sufficient? It's not like we aren't throwing money around here, there and everywhere. How hasn't he been backed sufficiently? He's spent loads of cash since coming here and there really aren't many excuses anymore. He's basically getting whatever he wants. He didn't try to sign a FB and the winger he tried to sign isn't the sort of player that would hugely impact out chances of success imo.

He's got spurs finishing second in a league where you can't compare his resources to those of his competitors, he's pretty hard to criticize.

 

[Kapardin]

Why weren't his signings sufficient? It's not like we aren't throwing money around here, there and everywhere. How hasn't he been backed sufficiently? He's spent loads of cash since coming here and there really aren't many excuses anymore. He's basically getting whatever he wants. He didn't try to sign a FB and the winger he tried to sign isn't the sort of player that would hugely impact out chances of success imo.

Don't want to discuss Jose in a Pep thread, so this will be my last post on the subject here.

van Gaal left us a 6th placed squad that finished 5th only because it was a weak season when Leicester won the title. Jose came in and we made 4 signings last season, when we really should have got in a midfielder, a winger and a FB as well. We are still short of the latter two now. Even when we finished 6th in the league, we had to rely a lot on Zlatan, Pogba and Mkhi (ok, him for the EL more) for that finish which showed how inadequate our squad is.

Jose should have spent more and signed more last season. We cannot say he spent enough because player prices are getting ridiculous and we had spent a lot on useless signings during LvG's time. Pogba alone was 89 mil, so that puts things into perspective.

This season, Jose hasn't had backing from the board because it seems we have a budget. Spending 75 mil on Lukaku implied Jose had reached the limit. We couldn't shell out 50 mil on Perisic and while there were rumors of Jose being interested in a FB, we didn't actively pursue it. That's down to the board, I highly doubt that with our existing FB options, Jose wouldn't be looking for a new FB.

And why do you look down on Perisic? Everybody said the same about Matic and look at his impact. Look at how Perisic is currently playing for Inter. If we had signed him, he would atleast have bagged 2-3 goals and some assists by now.

FYI, I wanted someone better than Perisic myself. But then I realised we had no better options and he had a good output at Inter.

He's got spurs finishing second in a league where you can't compare his resources to those of his competitors, he's pretty hard to criticize.

Even Martinez won an FA Cup with Wigan. Why not Poch? Finishing 2nd with Spurs does not mean he would be a success at a top club. Tactics don't translate across clubs that easily. Of course, he could well go on to be a great manager, but that's still moot.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Don't want to discuss Jose in a Pep thread, so this will be my last post on the subject here.

van Gaal left us a 6th placed squad that finished 5th only because it was a weak season when Leicester won the title. Jose came in and we made 4 signings last season, when we really should have got in a midfielder, a winger and a FB as well. We are still short of the latter two now. Even when we finished 6th in the league, we had to rely a lot on Zlatan, Pogba and Mkhi for that finish which showed how inadequate our squad is.

Jose should have spent more and signed more last season. We cannot say he spent enough because player prices are getting ridiculous and we had spent a lot on useless signings during LvG's time. Pogba alone was 89 mil, so that puts things into perspective.

This season, Jose hasn't had backing from the board because it seems we have a budget. Spending 75 mil on Lukaku implied Jose had reached the limit. We couldn't shell out 50 mil on Perisic and while there were rumors of Jose being interested in a FB, we didn't actively pursue it. That's down to the board, I highly doubt that with our existing FB options, Jose wouldn't be looking for a new FB.

And why do you look down on Perisic? Everybody said the same about Matic and look at his impact. Look at how Perisic is currently playing for Inter. If we had signed him, he would atleast have bagged 2-3 goals and some assists by now.

FYI, I wanted someone better than Perisic myself. But then I realised we had no better options and he had a good output at Inter.



Even Martinez won an FA Cup with Wigan. Why not Poch? Finishing 2nd with Spurs does not mean he would be a success at a top club. Tactics don't translate across clubs that easily. Of course, he could well go on to be a great manager, but that's still moot.

Jose has had lots of money to spend and he's spent quite a bit of it and it's not like the board didn't try to make the Perisic deal happen. There's also an option of selling players and signing other's if he isn't satisfied with what he has. Also while prices are high, there are still some good deals out there waiting to be made.
Don't rate either Matic or Perisic. We do have better options, he's called Martial. We didn't shell out that money cause we thought he wasn't worth it not due to limited funds. Heck, Jose was talking up our Bale interest even after we had spent a lot of money.
No one said anything about him managing big sides but he's done a sterling job at spurs so far. He hasn't the squad and can't afford a squad to be challenging on all fronts so its obvious he has to prioritize the big competitions which he does really well in one of them. I'd criticize him more for his CL campaign last time around than not winning those mini cups. Heck, Wenger seems to win one every year yet he's under serious pressure.

 

[serghei]

Of course it has its drawbacks. When have you ever heard it doesn't? It is however the most difficult style of football to master and it has the highest chance of winning. By the simple act if having the ball, you automatically cannot concede and is the only one in a position to score. Of course it isn't an absolute formula that ensures 100% success rate but nothing does.

The very fact that you remember precisely those games where Barcelona's style failed is evidence enough of how dominant they were. When we reach a level with a team that their failures are so vividly remembered in their uniqueness, it tells you how they made overpowering and more often than not, humiliating their rivals seem so normal.

Yes that's what it exactly does. The points tally does not show it but your place in football folklore, the history books, the universal admiration, etc ... does. You have every right and are entitled to think it's useless but you are wrong to assume your view is how everyone sees it. The big clubs win and they win often, it is not enough for them anymore. You think another title for Barcelona this year will make them perfectly satisfied? Look at Real now, they won back to back CLs, a feat other teams can only dream of and what was Zidane talking about early this season? He pointed out how they need to become more comfortable in their possession game so they can control games against even Barcelona. That's how he views greatness. The best clubs do not want to win, they want to be known as THE best and to be that, you do indeed need to play with the pro activeness and ego that demands having the ball and taking charge of your games the way Barcelona did better than everybody else. There is an argument though that in England, the rules are a bit different. There are more clubs capable of winning the league and winning it in itself is so difficult nowadays that none of our teams are in a position where they have look to establish themselves as the new Barcelona or Real. They are too preoccupied to even get in the CL to have any time to build a stylish team the way the Spanish can.

Winning goes without saying. Of course if Pep doesn't win, he wouldn't even be part of the discussion. That's a moot point. In your hypothetical scenario, the discussion will be about criteria. I don't think there is such a thing as the "best" manager. I think it should always be accompanied by "at ..." because there hasn't been and will never be a manager who is great at everything. Mourinho for me for example is the best in the world and maybe history at winning with relatively inferior resources. Nobody in modern history could have won a treble with Porto and Inter like he did. No one can thoroughly prepare a team to block a superior opponent like he can which is what you need when your individual quality is inferior. Guardiola however is the best today and one of the all time greats at getting a team to make you look like they're playing with more men if that makes any sense to you. His teams can show a level of dominance that is just crazy in how good they are at controlling territory and space and at making you play to their tune. In that category, you have the likes of Michels, Sacchi and Cruyff. They all had different ideas and tactical ethos but they were all very successful at not only perfecting a singular vision but also influencing generations after them.

So to go back to your hypothetical scenario, you have to define your personal criteria. If you value consistency above all, Conte's scrappy titles obviously make him the best. Don't forget that Cruyff and Sacchi had very short careers relatively and won much less than so many and yet look at how highly they are viewed in European football. What do you think the reason for that.

Top class comment.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

This is stupidly OTT.

Not least because it suggests Peps Barca played 100 minute matches.

 

[kouroux]

Not least because it suggests Peps Barca played 100 minute matches.

it'd make Fergie time look like nothing in comparaison