I was reading comments on whether pep was the best ever prem manager. Someone listed fergusons accomplishments and it makes pep look like a child given his daddy's company to play with. If it unclear I really don't rate him highly. Mourinho was better, ferguson was better, wenger was better, just in very modern terms.
I’m no fan of City but you’ve got to recognise Pep’s genius. In an era where everyone has got lots of money he managed to make a difference. He has built his team as an unstoppable and unplayable juggernaut. People who say it’s all about the money available should look at PSG and Man United. With loads of money but mediocre managers their teams have been nowhere. Compared to other eras he also stands out. He beats the likes of Ferguson and Wenger hands down. The best club team in world football bar none. No I’m not talking about the most successful team over a period but one at this moment in time that would have beaten any that have existed.
How can you possibly think he's better than wenger and ferguson. Riddle me this, when has pep ever took over a team that 1. Was not already well established 2. Didn't have a blank cheque book for him 3. Have a forward that was in his prime. **** me ferguson won the cup winners cup with Aberdeen for ****s sake. Aberdeen. Let that sink in. How good a manager he must have been to make a small Scottish club win a European cup.
Pep's genius is overrated imo. They'd have already won at least a couple of CLs by now if it wasn't for some of his barmy decisions.
yeah but Aberdeen and Barca don't count to making either man the best manager in the Premier league history. guardiola is now 7 seasons in England with 5 titles? maybe 2 fa cups 4 leagues cups 1 cl ferguson was 20? years in the Premier league. 13 leagues, 4 fa cups, 4 league cups and 2 cl. (prem era only) you might say at point of start of prem or arrival of pep both clubs were already established. if you project what money has done for pep out over 20 years he would eclipse ferguson utterly. but in the end no matter what guardiola does its tainted by rampant cheating by city.
Ferguson built a team (multiple teams Tbf and in different countries) Mourihnio built a team Ancelotti built a team (multiple teams Tbf and in different countries) Klopp built a team (multiple teams Tbf and in different countries) Wenger arguably changed football imho Pep (imho) inherited two of the greatest players ever in his squad in Xavi and Iniesta not to mention countless others then went to treble winning a team and failed to win the CL then went to City where other managers had already established City at the top - they were not a team in trouble (LFC when Klopp arrived) - they were requiring fine tuning to win the CL (which they will win this year) is he good at tuning his squads - imho absolutely Is he a brilliant man manager - imho absolutely Is he good tactically- yeah (makes mistakes but everyone has/done) Is he clever - very very astute at where he takes himself Is he the best No, not imho, the four named above for me as way better Just an opinion and there others that could be better too busby cough shankly paisley too many to mention tbh
Well that's not true There maybe alot of spending but that doesn't mean every club has lots of money, certain clubs skew that view by spending ALOT more than others, *Cough* Chelsea *Cough* and others that spend beyond their means. But most clubs have enough money to function and enough to spend abit or more. If you asked Palace fans if they think their club has lots of money, I'm sure they'd say the opposite. Then of course there are the clubs where money is no obstacle and can pretty much get who they want and can almost put together a 'dream team'. I also saw yesterday an interesting idea that the unlimited funds doesn't just help with transfer and wages, but it also allows the best coaching, the best facilities, the best technical, finance, commercial, scouting staff, the best options for your Youth setup and so on. And Man City are one of those clubs. I thought of an analogy, its like the Olympic 100m final. Where every competitor on their day could beat the others to the finish line if everything was equal and fair. However some of them are running with all the best gear and have all the best training and access to analysts etc And some are running without shoes and have some guy training them And everything in between. So Pep is clearly an excellent coach however it must be acknowledged he has had a massive leg up over most of the rest of his competitors
Funny thing about Fergie is he would have been sacked early on in today's game. As good as he was, his first season wasn't great. In today's climate of "sack if you don't achieve right away" he would have been sacked and United would never have had their prosperous era. Fans were calling for his head but owners stuck with him, and it was obviously now in hindsight the right thing to do.
Very true. I really don't get the pep love in. Is he a very talented manager, Yes of course. Does he have everything laid on a plate for him. Very much so.
Well first off the original idiot was stating best Premier league manager of all time? no? we can exclude everyone bar ferguson from the debate at that point. mourinho has fallen out with Chelsea twice utd and spurs. that excludes him 100% winger had a couple runs but he is nowhere in this conversation. it's purely down to whether guardiola is amazing enough to ignore the taint of financial doping?
PL era only then it's 100% Ferguson. I'd put Wenger second tbh. Mourinho is probably third. It's beyond this point it gets tricky imo. Makes for **** reading really, don't like any of them three
You can’t deny he’s a brilliant manager. Yes money helps of course it does. But if you shoved lampard in charge of Man City all season do you think they’d be in for the treble right now? I think it’s silly saying he’s only ever taken on brilliant teams. Isn’t that cos he’s just a very good manager? How many of you on here saying pep isn’t a great manager, also puts messi as the greatest? Messi has only ever played for a brilliant Barca team and not dominant psg. Does that mean he can’t be a great player, because he’s never played in a team that has struggled? Ronaldo only gone from United to madrid to Juve. All dominant in their leagues (United maybe less so) does that mean he’s not a great player? Its an easy thing to bash that he’s had lots of money, but he wouldn’t be hired by those top clubs if he was an awful manager and wouldn’t be trusted to spend that money.
I probably wouldn't have Mourinho in the top six or seven... Maybe lower. He does Ok first season, great second season... But then usually by third season he has done long-playing harm to the club he took over and leaves it in worse state then he found it. He sells future talent, buys obvious household names that have already peaked. He's never done anything revolutionary in England, he's just taken advantage of extra spending power to buy titles. If we're just looking at last thirty years. Fergie and Wenger one and two... But wherever you rank Pep, (I actually rank him pretty high, despite his mega money). He HAS to be above Mourinho because he has been able to keep a sustained run of greatness. Jose can only manage it for one or two years before it all collapses on him.
How would we ever know how good he is when he's never faced any serious challenges that an endless supply of money can't solve? His only job is to build a team from virtually any player on the planet he chooses. There's no doubt he's good, but how good is impossible to tell. Give him Everton on a budget then we might get a better idea.
That's not a fair analogy. You can watch Messi play, against the best players in the world, where his talent is obvious. You can't tell quite how good Pep is because being a manager isn't a level playing field.
