Is Pellegrini the worst manager to have won the PL?

[InBiscanWeTrust]

Quite like Pelligrini and the way he conducts himself. As a manager I rate him too. Today was just a bad day at the office. There isn't a manager on that poll who hasn't had that. Only a week or two ago it was Mourinho against Spurs.

I heard someone today say City have the best squad, Chelsea has the best 11. I think that's about right and the title may very well be decided by that. Pelligrini may just fall short bcos Chelsea's 11 (or so) are just too bloody strong. What he did when City looked all but out of the CL in the group stages shows he's a winner imo.

That's the thing.

City can cope with injuries a lot better than Chelsea. How long have City had to cope without Aguero and now Toure for yet they are still near Chelsea because their squad is a lot stronger being able to replace with quality.

If Chelsea lose Costa and Fabregas/Matic for the same period of time I think they would struggle a lot more than City.

 

[Diego]

1 Person won by getting 40 points
1 Person won by getting 30 points
1 Person won by getting 10 points

All 3 won... however one of them was the worst by definition

"of poorer quality or lower standard; less good or desirable"

Has to be Fergie then by your judgement, 1996/97 75 points.
Not sure i would pick him as worst manager to win the premier league though

 

[Diego]

That's the thing.

City can cope with injuries a lot better than Chelsea. How long have City had to cope without Aguero and now Toure for yet they are still near Chelsea because their squad is a lot stronger being able to replace with quality.

If Chelsea lose Costa and Fabregas/Matic for the same period of time I think they would struggle a lot more than City.

City actually made up points on Chelsea without Aguero and Dzeko

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Quite like Pelligrini and the way he conducts himself. As a manager I rate him too. Today was just a bad day at the office. There isn't a manager on that poll who hasn't had that. Only a week or two ago it was Mourinho against Spurs.

I heard someone today say City have the best squad, Chelsea has the best 11. I think that's about right and the title may very well be decided by that. Pelligrini may just fall short bcos Chelsea's 11 (or so) are just too bloody strong. What he did when City looked all but out of the CL in the group stages shows he's a winner imo.

Far too sensible a comment for this thread

 

[Tobes]

1 Person won by getting 40 points
1 Person won by getting 30 points
1 Person won by getting 10 points

All 3 won... however one of them was the worst by definition

"of poorer quality or lower standard; less good or desirable"

Absolute nonsense.

How many points you win it by is affected by numerous variables, not least the standard of the entire league at that point in time.

Winning the league by a point could be just as a great an achievement as winning it by 20.

 

[astro]

Absolute nonsense.

How many points you win it by is affected by numerous variables, not least the standard of the entire league at that point in time.

Winning the league by a point could be just as a great an achievement as winning it by 20.

So come up with your own parameters for the qualities of a manager, then decide which of the managers in the [HASHTAG]#poll[/HASHTAG] least satisfy your criteria

 

[Tobes]

So come up with your own parameters for the qualities of a manager, then decide which of the managers in the [HASHTAG]#poll[/HASHTAG] least satisfy your criteria

Only a complete cloth head would compile a set of parameters attempting to decide who in their eyes is the 'worst' Champion.

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

Has to be Fergie then by your judgement, 1996/97 75 points.
Not sure i would pick him as worst manager to win the premier league though

I did

 

[InBiscanWeTrust]

Absolute nonsense.

How many points you win it by is affected by numerous variables, not least the standard of the entire league at that point in time.

Winning the league by a point could be just as a great an achievement as winning it by 20.

I was using points as an example to prove the point that you can have a worst winner, not specifically in relation to how you'd measure this.

winning 1m, 2m and 3m are all great but of the 3 winning the 1m is the worst.

Winning the league cup, league title and champ league are all great, but the league cup is the worst to win out of the 3

 

[Tobes]

I was using points as an example to prove the point that you can have a worst winner, not specifically in relation to how you'd measure this.

winning 1m, 2m and 3m are all great but of the 3 winning the 1m is the worst.

Winning the league cup, league title and champ league are all great, but the league cup is the worst to win out of the 3

That analogy doesn't work though, as of course £3m is better than £1m, it's a different prize ffs, not the same.

Neither does the listing of different competitions as the same applies, as the LC is less prestigious than the League.

The question related to the PL only.

 

[astro]

That analogy doesn't work though, as of course £3m is better than £1m, it's a different prize ffs, not the same.

Neither does the listing of different competitions as the same applies, as the LC is less prestigious than the League.

The question related to the PL only.

OK so your opinion is that Alex Ferguson, Kenny Dalglish, Arsène Wenger, José Mourinho, Carlo Ancelotti, Roberto Mancini, and Manuel Pellegrini are all exactly the same in terms of quality of management.

Fine

 

[Tobes]

OK so your opinion is that Alex Ferguson, Kenny Dalglish, Arsène Wenger, José Mourinho, Carlo Ancelotti, Roberto Mancini, and Manuel Pellegrini are all exactly the same in terms of quality of management.

Fine

No, that their achievement in winning the PL was the same, a winner is a winner, you can't have a 'worst' winner you melt.

Your question wasn't who's the best / worst manager per se, it was who is the worst winner of the PL, which as I said at the outset is an oxymoron.

 

[astro]

No, that their achievement in winning the PL was the same, a winner is a winner, you can't have a 'worst' winner you melt.

Your question wasn't who's the best / worst manager per se, it was who is the worst winner of the PL, which as I said at the outset is an oxymoron.

The question is who is the worst manager. The candidates are restricted to only those who have won the Premier League.

 

[InBiscanWeTrust]

That analogy doesn't work though, as of course £3m is better than £1m, it's a different prize ffs, not the same.

Neither does the listing of different competitions as the same applies, as the LC is less prestigious than the League.

The question related to the PL only.

Again you're taking it too literal. Your point was you can't have a worst winner... The above point's prove you can win things but still have a worst one

 

[Bodinki]

If the question is, "Of all the PL winning managers, which is worst?" then it is definitely between the 2 City managers.
Whoever put SAF is ****ing melt
Carlo and Jose have proven themselves winners at multiple clubs over multiple leagues.
Dalgleish proved his quality in his first stint at Liverpool, and again at Blackburn
Pellegrini I must admit I had never heard of him before he came to City so I dont know, but a quick look at his history doesn't show me all that much to get excited about. Knowing little about South American football either, I cannot attest as to whether any of the achievements he made there were worth a damn.

Mancini was ok in Italy with Inter, then won the league on goal difference with the most expensive squad in PL history, and only on GD against one of the worst Uniteds squads in SAF's tenure.
Also, as above, he is a terrible man manager and very emotional.
I went with Mancini.

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

Lads, lads, save yourselves some time...

You must log in or register to see images

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

If the question is, "Of all the PL winning managers, which is worst?" then it is definitely between the 2 City managers.
Whoever put SAF is ****ing melt
Carlo and Jose have proven themselves winners at multiple clubs over multiple leagues.
Dalgleish proved his quality in his first stint at Liverpool, and again at Blackburn
Pellegrini I must admit I had never heard of him before he came to City so I dont know, but a quick look at his history doesn't show me all that much to get excited about. Knowing little about South American football either, I cannot attest as to whether any of the achievements he made there were worth a damn.

Mancini was ok in Italy with Inter, then won the league on goal difference with the most expensive squad in PL history, and only on GD against one of the worst Uniteds squads in SAF's tenure.
Also, as above, he is a terrible man manager and very emotional.
I went with Mancini.

as did... i.... simple and logcial. Pelligrini got shafted by real and got the city job. mancini won seira a due to juve imploding and I was shwon by someone he did nothing in euope much. at city we was god awful

 

[astro]

If the question is, "Of all the PL winning managers, which is worst?" then it is definitely between the 2 City managers.
Whoever put SAF is ****ing melt
Carlo and Jose have proven themselves winners at multiple clubs over multiple leagues.
Dalgleish proved his quality in his first stint at Liverpool, and again at Blackburn
Pellegrini I must admit I had never heard of him before he came to City so I dont know, but a quick look at his history doesn't show me all that much to get excited about. Knowing little about South American football either, I cannot attest as to whether any of the achievements he made there were worth a damn.

Mancini was ok in Italy with Inter, then won the league on goal difference with the most expensive squad in PL history, and only on GD against one of the worst Uniteds squads in SAF's tenure.
Also, as above, he is a terrible man manager and very emotional.
I went with Mancini.

But remember Mancini also won them the FA Cup, used that to build a winning mentality to get the title the next season. He had to do a lot of "firsts" and shape City from expensive mercenaries to an actual winning club. Pellegrini has just inherited that and tried not to **** things up.

Aguero, Yaya, Nasri, Silva, Milner, Kolarov... the heart of City's squad is Mancini's

 

[Super G Ted'inho]

If the question is, "Of all the PL winning managers, which is worst?" then it is definitely between the 2 City managers.
Whoever put SAF is ****ing melt
Carlo and Jose have proven themselves winners at multiple clubs over multiple leagues.
Dalgleish proved his quality in his first stint at Liverpool, and again at Blackburn
Pellegrini I must admit I had never heard of him before he came to City so I dont know, but a quick look at his history doesn't show me all that much to get excited about. Knowing little about South American football either, I cannot attest as to whether any of the achievements he made there were worth a damn.

Mancini was ok in Italy with Inter, then won the league on goal difference with the most expensive squad in PL history, and only on GD against one of the worst Uniteds squads in SAF's tenure.
Also, as above, he is a terrible man manager and very emotional.
I went with Mancini.

Yeah, but we all know you've got **** taste

 

[Bodinki]

But remember Mancini also won them the FA Cup, used that to build a winning mentality to get the title the next season. He had to do a lot of "firsts" and shape City from expensive mercenaries to an actual winning club. Pellegrini has just inherited that and tried not to **** things up.

Aguero, Yaya, Nasri, Silva, Milner, Kolarov... the heart of City's squad is Mancini's

True! I hadn't considered that.
Pellegrini inherited winners.
Mancini inherited Mercenaries.

Still though, would be unfair to judge Pellegrini as he is still in charge and who knows what else he will achieve at the club.....but one season = 1 league title isnt a bad start, if he ****s it up this season though.