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

What's your take on Guardiola?

  • The best manager in the world

    Votes: 13 1.9%

  • One of the best managers in the world, with flaws like everyone else

    Votes: 179 26.6%

  • A very good manager with some serious limitations

    Votes: 186 27.6%

  • A good manager who has been successful only because he's had exceptional teams

    Votes: 237 35.2%

  • A total fraud

    Votes: 58 8.6%
  • Total voters
    673
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Treble said:
Conte didn't park the bus vs Liverpool away last season though. They created several great chances and missed a pen when it was 1:1. I'd say that Conte's Chelsea is a more attacking side than Jose's. Jose's tactics wouldn't have brought him a win against Atleti away either. Chelsea dominated the game and were attacking for most of the game. Being cautious is one thing and parking the bus is another thing.
Click to expand...
Context. L'pool was in worse for during that period. 4 defeats and bunches of draw in January. First game in Feb was another defeat. Chelsea had a huge point cushion so they couldn't care less if they drop 2 or another extra point.

Using Chelsea victory to Atletico to say Mourinho's tactic wouldn't work is quite reaching. It's not like Mourinho team never won away to Atletico. So using that logic, Chelsea latest defeat away to Crystal Palace, then CP would be a tougher team to play against than Atletico? Or Barcelona attack is not as good as Chelsea's?
 
ti vu said:
Context. L'pool was in worse for during that period. 4 defeats and bunches of draw in January. First game in Feb was another defeat. Chelsea had a huge point cushion so they couldn't care less if they drop 2 or another extra point.

Using Chelsea victory to Atletico to say Mourinho's tactic wouldn't work is quite reaching. It's not like Mourinho team never won away to Atletico. So using that logic, Chelsea latest defeat away to Crystal Palace, then CP would be a tougher team to play against than Atletico? Or Barcelona attack is not as good as Chelsea's?
Click to expand...

You mean Real with Ronaldo? I remember Chelsea drawing Atleti 0:0 in the CL (2014?), that was one of the most boring games ever. The example with Atleti was meant to show that Conte isn't as defensively minded as Jose when it comes to big games. You disagree? Conte has a history of parking the bus on such occasions?
 
Treble said:
You mean Real with Ronaldo? I remember Chelsea drawing Atleti 0:0 in the CL (2014?), that was one of the most boring games ever. The example with Atleti was meant to show that Conte isn't as defensively minded as Jose when it comes to big games. You disagree? Conte has a history of parking the bus on such occasions?
Click to expand...
This season alone. City, Tottenham
 
Treble said:
They scored 2 vs Spurs and had other chances. Whatever.
Click to expand...
Did watch the game? Everyone were laughing how insanely ruthless they were. 2 shots on target and 2 goal. And it came out of Poch's mouth. Same with the FA Cup tie last season. It has been a theme for Chelsea ruthlessly converted their chance under Conte.

So explain what happened with on fire Messi couldn't win vs Atletico. Why Chelsea attack works but not Barcelona? Was Chelsea more attacking than Barcelona? Ronaldo and Madrid not always win away to Atletico either. So is it all about one tactic or it's football?

Edit: Link so you can check that Poch definitely mentioned 2 shots on target = 2 goals thing

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40914668
 
ti vu said:
Did watch the game? Everyone were laughing how insanely ruthless they were. 2 shots on target and 2 goal. And it came out of Poch's mouth. Same with the FA Cup tie last season. It has been a theme for Chelsea ruthlessly converted their chance under Conte.

So explain what happened with on fire Messi couldn't win vs Atletico. Why Chelsea attack works but not Barcelona? Was Chelsea more attacking than Barcelona? Ronaldo and Madrid not always win away to Atletico either. So is it all about one tactic or it's football?

Edit: Link so you can check that Poch definitely mentioned 2 shots on target = 2 goals thing

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40914668
Click to expand...

Chances do not equate to shots on target. A team can hit the bar 3-4 times and finishing the game without a shot on target. But I agree that Spurs dominated the game and deserved to win it. Chelsea looked passive for big parts of the game or were just outplayed and couldn't attack.
 
Treble said:
Chances do not equate to shots on target. A team can hit the bar 3-4 times and finishing the game without a shot on target. But I agree that Spurs dominated the game and deserved to win it. Chelsea looked passive for big parts of the game or were just outplayed and couldn't attack.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that Tottenham deserved to win. They couldn't score themselves when Chelsea while got lucky with the second goal, they deserved the victory by defending well and got at least one goal you couldn't argue if or but. My point is defending well and being clinical with few chance can be sufficient to get result and challenge for title. Chelsea is master of this and winning the title last season with is approach.
 
Shark said:
They put 7 past Stoke at home, and there's posters on here already handing Pep the title. Meanwhile, we have also dished out some thrashings, some of which we could have easily scored more and you have posters saying that City are levels above us, and we can't do anything but lump balls up the field, because we had a routine poor game at Anfield.


Not surprised though.
Click to expand...
Agreed,

We put 9 past Ipswich once I would like them to tell me how that season went? or when we put 8 past Arsenal. ?
 
HTG said:
I don‘t think this criticism will ever go away. We broke multiple records defensively with Pep as our coach and there still was constant complaining our defense should improve.
Click to expand...
It won't, no. Guardiola's teams don't defend in a conventional way, so all the pundits commenting on it, who tend to be in their 40s/60s, look at the 2-3 great chances they give up and call it bad defending. Ignoring the fact that giving up 2-3 chances, even big ones, while giving absolutely 0 chances of more, is a pretty good sign since most teams won't convert them
 
Theonas said:
After our win against them at Old Trafford last season: "Chelsea are very good defensive team. They defend very well and with lots of players and I think in this situation a very defensive team wins the title with counter-attack goals and set-pieces goals, so I don't think they will let it slip but football is football."

http://www.goal.com/en/news/premier...-manchester-united/1bt4u4csbq8qh1ff04ysalnmke

And earlier again this season: "We know that if you look in a pragmatic way, you see the last winners of the Premier League, the last winners of the Premier League, they did not play attacking football. They played defensive football and counter-attack football."

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/09/jose-mourinho-aims-dig-at-defensive-antonio-conte-and-chelsea-6914550/
Click to expand...
Love it. "Mourinho aims dig at Conte". No you fecking idiot, he's aiming a dig at YOU(the media)
 
Treble said:
Chances do not equate to shots on target. A team can hit the bar 3-4 times and finishing the game without a shot on target. But I agree that Spurs dominated the game and deserved to win it. Chelsea looked passive for big parts of the game or were just outplayed and couldn't attack.
Click to expand...
How??? Chelsea created more and better chances. They deserved that win
 
giorno said:
How??? Chelsea created more and better chances. They deserved that win
Click to expand...
It was a close game. Either way Chelsea didn't park the bus. It's just a thing now on the caf to pretend other top managers also do what Jose does including SAF.
 
padr81 said:
Yet at the time of the red card, City had most the ball, more shots and were a goal to the good.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.. if this, if that. Liverpool didn't have KDB and even the Liverpool supporters on here said we were more likely to grab a second although the game was very much in the balance but it was more likely their defensive incompetence would lead us to a 2nd before Salah roasting Otamendi would grab them an equaliser.

Your last sentence is fantastic btw and I agree with it 100%.
Click to expand...
I'm not using an "if" for players performing out of their minds. I'm just trying to say that the space was there, the runs were made, the balls were just not good enough. It's not talking about changing the past or alternate reality. It's pointing out the opportunities that defense gave. With all the rave about how great City are atm, i see no issues in taking a look at both sides of the coin. City do have weaknesses, albeit not too many, and no team has managed to punish them.
 
Can we not have a thread with this title on this forum though. It hurts my eyes. If it read Klopp instead of Guardiola I'd be convulsing by now.
 
cyberman said:
@padr81
Videos of what? Watfords 3/4 glorious chances that they somehow missed? Bournemouth fluffing the best chance of the game to go 2-1 up? Salah ripping you open time and time again only to mess up the easier final ball? Stoke actually scoring 2 despite being destroyed?
Im not making this up ffs.
Im not saying you have a bad defence but your defence isnt as good as simply stating 4 goals conceded lolz makes it out to be.
Click to expand...

Yes because they are only glorious chances against City in your eyes, similiar opportunities against United/Spurs etc.. are half chances and well defended. Watford had 2 decent chances the entire game, we had the best chances v Bournemouth. That is the equivalent of me saying Swansea had the best chance vs United.. simply not true and you are twisting history.

You seem to have unreasonable expectations of City in defence and other sides get a pass for the same things. Bottom line is we're the 2nd best side in England defensively so far this season, We've actually conceded less chances and shots according to Squawka (not the most accurate but pretty accurate all the same) than any other side. Can we be got at? Of course, but the reality is we defend with the ball and give up less opportunities than 90% of the PL, possibly 100% so far this season.

Heres more proof of you being wrong..

SkySports Clear Cut Chances Against.
United - L'Pool - 2, Palace - 0, Sth - 0, Everton - 0, Stoke - 3, Leicester - 1, Swansea - 1, West Ham - 1 = 8 in total.
City - Stoke - 1, Chelsea - 2, Palace - 1, Watford - 2, L'Pool - 1, B'Mouth - 0, Everton - 1, Brighton - 0 = 8 in total.

I've bolded the stats for the two games in particular you highlighted, so please explain to me how a Watford side who only had 2 clear cut chances in the game, had 3/4 glorious ones and then follow it up with B'Mouth's best chance of the game to go 2-1 up when they created 0 CCC.

By the way I'm using United as a defensive benchmark, because well you are the defensive benchmark and best defence so far.

Of course of defence isn't as good as United, no one can set a defence like Jose, but our defence is 2nd best this season on merit and concedes far less than people give it credit for.
 
Last edited:
giorno said:
It won't, no. Guardiola's teams don't defend in a conventional way, so all the pundits commenting on it, who tend to be in their 40s/60s, look at the 2-3 great chances they give up and call it bad defending. Ignoring the fact that giving up 2-3 chances, even big ones, while giving absolutely 0 chances of more, is a pretty good sign since most teams won't convert them
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is really weird how he is criticized in general. Guardiola loses playing a high line or with four forwards = it‘s his fault. No matter what. Someone else loses by parking the bus = what you‘re gonna do? Shit happens.
Obviously I‘m exaggerating. But there is this tendency to blame a new or different approach even for small issues while those sticking to the conventional wisdom are absolved of criticism.
 
walkinhop said:
I'm not using an "if" for players performing out of their minds. I'm just trying to say that the space was there, the runs were made, the balls were just not good enough. It's not talking about changing the past or alternate reality. It's pointing out the opportunities that defense gave. With all the rave about how great City are atm, i see no issues in taking a look at both sides of the coin. City do have weaknesses, albeit not too many, and no team has managed to punish them.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you, and of course City have weakness to many things. But when people say "Liverpool were looking likely to get a draw", I find that unfair. I thought bar Otamendi struggling with Salah City dealt with them quite well, restricted them to 1 chance 11 v 11 and were far more likely to win the game. In fact despite our defending being more edge of the seat they carved out as much against United over the same duration 11 v 11.

Of course that doesn't change the fact we have a soft centre, its plain for all to see. But that defence as the stats will show give up feck all opportunities even to Liverpool during a game. Of course thats hugely boosted by the amount of ball we have, but I think it was KDB that said we defend by having the ball.
 
Probably the best manager in the world, all things considered. Mourinho's tendency to play for the draw against equal or better opponents, and his lack of eye for obvious talents (Mata, Lukaku, Salah, De Bruyne etc), both characteristics that he's developed in the last few years, put him below Guardiola for me.
 
Prometheus said:
Probably the best manager in the world, all things considered. Mourinho's tendency to play for the draw against equal or better opponents, and his lack of eye for obvious talents (Mata, Lukaku, Salah, De Bruyne etc), both characteristics that he's developed in the last few years, put him below Guardiola for me.
Click to expand...

Just my 2 cent but I don't think there is a best manager in the world. Just a bunch of really top ones that need certain conditions to be met to succeed. We've already seen Mou can win with an underdog better than Pep. We've also seen Mou can be a little more disruptive and sometimes overly negative.

Both have their transfer mistakes... Jose's KDB, Lukaku etc.. Pep's Ibra, Bravo etc.. even Sir Alex made plenty of bloopers (Pogba, DjembaDjemba, Bebe etc...)
I think its a little unfair to blame Joses eye for talent as much as Jose looks for "different" talents and traits in a player.
 
do.ob said:
Discussions like these is what xG is made for.

this site seems to have the stats, though I can't verify the authenticity:
https://understat.com/league/EPL
Click to expand...

I can never wrap my head around the xG and xGA thing tbh but I haven't looked into it too much, either way I'm happy to see City as 2nd best defensively at anything.

I think according to that it shows City are being exceptionally lucky at sticking the ball in the net (5 more goals then what they should have) while United are being exceptionally lucky at keeping it out? (5 less goals than what they should have. DDG factor maybe?)
 
padr81 said:
I can never wrap my head around the xG and xGA thing tbh but I haven't looked into it too much, either way I'm happy to see City as 2nd best defensively at anything.

I think according to that it shows City are being exceptionally lucky at sticking the ball in the net (5 more goals then what they should have) while United are being exceptionally lucky at keeping it out? (5 less goals than what they should have. DDG factor maybe?)
Click to expand...

I'm no statistician, but I reckon exceeding xG value indicates your side is above average at finishing, while bettering your xGa indicates that either your opposition was below average at finishing (something which becomes less likely the more league matches you play) or that your keeper is above average at bailing out his defense.
 
do.ob said:
I'm no statistician, but I reckon exceeding xG value indicates your side is above average at finishing, while bettering your xGa indicates that either your opposition was below average at finishing (something which becomes less likely the more league matches you play) or that your keeper is above average at bailing out his defense.
Click to expand...
Considering the opposition United has faced so far, it's probably more of the former, although DDG certainly denied at least one clear xG against Pool last weekend.
 
do.ob said:
I'm no statistician, but I reckon exceeding xG value indicates your side is above average at finishing, while bettering your xGa indicates that either your opposition was below average at finishing (something which becomes less likely the more league matches you play) or that your keeper is above average at bailing out his defense.
Click to expand...

I googled it haha. The red means you're good at something, the green you are bad. Strange as I thought it would be the other.

Take City for example - scored 29, expected to be scored 23.4 - so we score - 5.whatever. This means we are burying and uncharacteristic amount of chances (confident, lucky, ruthless ala Chelsea last season). If every team buried and conceded at the expected rate we would be on

Man City - F-23 A-5 Pts-20
Man Unit - F-19 A-7 Pts-18
Tottenha - F-15 A-5 Pts-18

Using those stats it shows how poor in front of goal Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal are in comparison. Poor Everton are having it at both end, one of the worst defensive rates (conceding an unusally high no. of goals to chances against and scoring an unusually low amount of goals per chance). maybe Koeman can use it to save his job.
 
Treble said:
Conte didn't park the bus vs Liverpool away last season though. They created several great chances and missed a pen when it was 1:1. I'd say that Conte's Chelsea is a more attacking side than Jose's. Jose's tactics wouldn't have brought him a win against Atleti away either. Chelsea dominated the game and were attacking for most of the game. Being cautious is one thing and parking the bus is another thing.
Click to expand...
You're preaching to the choir mate. I think the man wants to have it both ways; he wants to convince the world that his approach to those big games is the smart one and constantly compares it to naïve "poets" as he put it as though nobody ever won without parking an aircraft. On the other hand, he also is unhappy with his defensive reputation by constantly talking about how other teams defend deep and do not want to open up the play. Luckily for him, he has a legion of fans whose devotion I have never seen the likes of which. They would defend him, how he plays and what he says in every single situation.

My post was about how by following his logic, he had a point. Even if Conte's Chelsea never parked the bus the way Mourinho does, the point that PL winners of the past few years were more about strength, pace and directness than the flair and pro activeness of Pep, Wenger or Klopp's teams was hard to argue against. Leicester and Chelsea were hardly teams that you would have backed to play Real or Bayern on equal footing. They were teams that would go into those games being expected to soak up the pressure and defend hoping for the break. A lot of British based pundits also like argue that it's simply impossible to build a team that can do both in the PL pointing to how the PL eventually forces you to adopt more direct and conservative tactics. This is why if Pep wins the league this year playing the way they have been so far and maybe convincingly beating their rivals the way they did Chelsea couple of weeks back, it will make a mockery of those arguments. It will raise the standards of what constitutes a successful season in English football the same way Barcelona redefined those standards few years back.
 
padr81 said:
I actually agree with you, and of course City have weakness to many things. But when people say "Liverpool were looking likely to get a draw", I find that unfair. I thought bar Otamendi struggling with Salah City dealt with them quite well, restricted them to 1 chance 11 v 11 and were far more likely to win the game. In fact despite our defending being more edge of the seat they carved out as much against United over the same duration 11 v 11.

Of course that doesn't change the fact we have a soft centre, its plain for all to see. But that defence as the stats will show give up feck all opportunities even to Liverpool during a game. Of course thats hugely boosted by the amount of ball we have, but I think it was KDB that said we defend by having the ball.
Click to expand...
I'm curious to see what happens when you go behind against a team with good counter. Simply out of curiosity.
 
FCBarca said:
Thing is they can do better than Fernandinho and I’m certain next summer they will look for that along with a CB
Click to expand...

In theory I agree but at the same time, who could replace his unique skillset without have to side-step/alter tactics to accomendate them?

He's strong, is technically sound, athletic in the right ways, willing to do the job with no fuss, has ability but plays within himself, can carry the ball and does a good job shielding the back four whilst being a box to box player too. Not to mention he knows the team and is very experienced.

What I would like to see is when teams packed the middle and see how this City team deals with genuine central midfield players against your forward thinking De Bruynes, Silvas etc. Thing is...there's not many teams that can field a squad like that and match their firepower up front also.
 
criticalanalysis said:
In theory I agree but at the same time, who could replace his unique skillset without have to side-step/alter tactics to accomendate them?
Click to expand...

Right now the obvious candidate would be Weigl


criticalanalysis said:
He's strong, is technically sound, athletic in the right ways, willing to do the job with no fuss, has ability but plays within himself, can carry the ball and does a good job shielding the back four whilst being a box to box player too. Not to mention he knows the team and is very experienced
Click to expand...

All true except I would also say he still is a limited player in that he will make big mistakes from time to time if he is asked/expected to do more. In an ideal world Pep would have 2009-2011 Yaya there but he doesn't have the legs to do that anymore


criticalanalysis said:
What I would like to see is when teams packed the middle and see how this City team deals with genuine central midfield players against your forward thinking De Bruynes, Silvas etc. Thing is...there's not many teams that can field a squad like that and match their firepower up front also.
Click to expand...

So much of City's attack last night came from the flanks with Leroy & Sterling, the former in particular was absolutely destroying Hysaj which you don't see often
 
Prodigal7 said:
I can't deny that Peps football is fecking stunning when he has his players in. But, its so intense I can't see him able to sustain this in a league with an intensity as high as the PL. He will need two separate first 11s to keep this up for the whole season.
Click to expand...

Four of their last five league games have been over with 30 minutes to go. If they keep that up, they shouldn't have any problems with fatigue.
 
Prometheus said:
Probably the best manager in the world, all things considered. Mourinho's tendency to play for the draw against equal or better opponents, and his lack of eye for obvious talents (Mata, Lukaku, Salah, De Bruyne etc), both characteristics that he's developed in the last few years, put him below Guardiola for me.
Click to expand...

Would Pep have won CL with Porto & Inter with those set of players? Absolutely no chance.
 
DanClancy said:
Way out of context.
Click to expand...
Just illustrating that comparing them that way isnt valid. It was an amazing achievement by Mou sure, but it's impossible to say what Pep would've done and vice versa. That being said, I think they're equally good in very opposing ways.
 
DanClancy said:
Would Pep have won CL with Porto & Inter with those set of players? Absolutely no chance.
Click to expand...

Would Mourinho have won the CL with that ageing Barca side of 2008 and brought through Messi, elevated Xavi/Iniesta to new heights like Pep did?

Also Pep was really successful with the Barcelona B team, so he can produce good football at a lower level too.

I don't think Pep could have won CL with Porto, but Inter were a Serie A giant who were always knocking on the door but always failing on the big occassion.. who is to say that Pep coming in, getting rid of Zlatan and bringing in a faster attack, better ball retention couldn't have won the CL.. it isn't impossible.

Furthermore you put Pep in side of the Madrid side during Jose's phase, same budget and I reckon Pep would have a) won more titles and b) probably have won a CL with that squad and some of his own additions.

Pep isn't a fraud IMO, he spends shit loads.. 100% agreed, he needs good players to play his style of football, agreed, but he definitely has the ability to enhance players game, put together quite mind blowing tactical frameworks in an attacking sense and when it works, it is at a level ahead of any rival manager in the game.. so he is a pretty special coaching talent. Unfallible? no of course not, no one is, adaptable? no.. but I reckon he could do better at a smaller club than people like to give him credit for.
 
Raees said:
Would Mourinho have won the CL with that ageing Barca side of 2008 and brought through Messi, elevated Xavi/Iniesta to new heights like Pep did?

Also Pep was really successful with the Barcelona B team, so he can produce good football at a lower level too.

I don't think Pep could have won CL with Porto, but Inter were a Serie A giant who were always knocking on the door but always failing on the big occassion.. who is to say that Pep coming in, getting rid of Zlatan and bringing in a faster attack, better ball retention couldn't have won the CL.. it isn't impossible.

Furthermore you put Pep in side of the Madrid side during Jose's phase, same budget and I reckon Pep would have a) won more titles and b) probably have won a CL with that squad and some of his own additions.

Pep isn't a fraud IMO, he spends shit loads.. 100% agreed, he needs good players to play his style of football, agreed, but he definitely has the ability to enhance players game, put together quite mind blowing tactical frameworks in an attacking sense and when it works, it is at a level ahead of any rival manager in the game.. so he is a pretty special coaching talent. Unfallible? no of course not, no one is, adaptable? no.. but I reckon he could do better at a smaller club than people like to give him credit for.
Click to expand...


Pep would a CL in 09 with a front 6 of Xavi (28), Iniesta (25), Busquets (20), Henry (31), Eto'o (28) & Messi (21). The back 4 wasn't that old either, looks like a huge collection of some of the worlds best players over the last 30 years. They were mismanaged in the previous season but winning a CL with that set of players isn't something to get carried away with.

Pep may well have won a CL that Mourinho's Real sides but Mourinho would likely have won them with Barca too, as for that set of players Mourinho won the CL with there's no chance Pep would have replicated that. Pep relies on a lot of great players to play the way he wants, Mourinho doesn't.
 
Pep and Mou are two totally different managers

Pep is a man with a fully tested philosophy. Give him time and money and he will transform any team into the same copy and paste team. That team will win anything there is to win up until his philosophy becomes outdated and he will end up a dinosaur just like Wenger, Sacchi and his former tutor LVG

Mou is the football version of Bronn in GOT. He will adapt and even cheat his way to success up until there’s a higher bidder and then he’ll move on. If he has his way then he won’t give a feck about the future of the club simply because he won’t be there for very long. That’s exactly what he did with Inter.

Pep is a Wenger, an LVG or a Sacchi. He wouldn’t mind firing the best player in his team if that player happens not to fully embrace his ‘philosophy’. Mou is a Capello, an Ancelotti (later years) or a more mercanary version of SAF. Success is all that matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.