He would do better with Arsenal, providing he gets the opportunity to and a proper transfer kitty. Wenger has shown far too much stubborness at times which is self restricting. We have the muscle and clout to attract most of the big names. But we need a transitional manager like Ancelotti to steady the ship, fix tactical and player deficiencies and make us more competitive in the league and CL. But going from Wenger to an inexperienced manager would be a bad idea. Wenger is an institution which would make it difficult for anyone other than an experienced manager to cope with. I hope they don't take a risk and go for the next new Wenger, the PL is far too hard and unforgiving for anyone like that to thrive.
Well at Bayern he had a 70% win rate and at Real he had 74% (89 wins 119 games) - so this would actually make Ancelotti look even better in a comparison. I'm not saying he would be the best option for Arsenal by any means but he clearly knows how to win and has done well over a long managerial career.
Completely agree. I don’t want to see us giving somebody like Eddie Howe ‘a chance’ at a big club. As there’s every chance that he’d make us sink like a stone. I want a manager who’s got a proven track record and plenty of champions league experience. Yes it narrows the field, but this is too big an issue to take a gamble on.
Nope, I'm afraid that's wrong. He has won 4 league titles. 1 with Milan, 1 with Chelsea, 1 with PSG & 1 with Bayern. I'm not sure where you've got 7 from. Given the financial juggernauts that most of those clubs are, it'd be an underachievement if he didn't win the league, frankly. As I said, his record in Europe can't be knocked. It's very impressive, and probably makes up for his average record of winning league titles. I still don't think he's the right man to take us forward in the long-run for reasons I've already mentioned, but I wouldn't mind him for a year or two.
If anyone's interested, here are some thought-provoking articles about Ancelotti's recent downfalls at Bayern: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...nich-future-vs-psg-next-manager-a7972426.html https://www.bundesliga.com/en/news/...-and-bayern-munich-what-went-wrong-460420.jsp http://www.espn.co.uk/football/club...ctics-trouble-and-player-power-rule-at-bayern
Would yo know where Klopp is on that list? Pretty bad record by ancelotti when taking into account the teams he has managed.
No its a very good record. Better than Klopp, Wenger, Hiddink, Pochettino, Allegri, Simeone. His first two Clubs were Reggiana and Parma. For Real and Bayern his win to games ratio is over 70% Jurgen Klopps win ratio as manager is 49.9% Lower than Wengers. Here's a longer list - Career wins: Sam Allardyce 39.4% Alan Pardew 40.1% Roberto Martinez 40.4% Pochettino 44.1% Eddie Howe 44.2% Lippi 49.0% Tuchel 49.3% Klopp 49.9% Benitez 50.3% Manuel Pellegrini 51.3% Allegri 51.6% ..although 70% with Juve. Unai Emery 52.9% Wenger 54.4% J Lowe 55.98% Fabio Capello 56.4% Simeone 56.8% Hiddink 56.8% Ancelotti 58.8% Conte 59.0% Mourinho 60.3% Guardiola 75.4%
when reading those stats you must also take into account the financial power of the managers respective clubs... Pep has a win ratio of 75% which is insane, but how much money has he spent at the clubs he has been at... IMO we saw what happens to pep last season when he doesnt have enough money to spend...idk maybe I am bitter because we never got him, but I always consider him a tad overrated as a manager until he manages a club without spending power.
I don't think it's any coincidence that both Pep and Maureens win ratio correlates with them being two of the biggest spenders in the game. Not saying they aren't good managers, just that having the ability to buy the best players clearly goes some way to help your win ratio !
All the other managers' career percentages are decreased by starting at mediocre clubs that don't win anywhere near as many games as 'big' clubs. Guardiola never started at a duff club. So no surprise his is a lot higher. Still - career percentages are pointless. I want the win percentage for the whole list just for the last three years.
Some on the list are obviously top managers but you can't discount the money aspect, it goes hand-in-hand with success, except for a few isolated cases. But is the disparity of quality in the PL high? City have some very good players, but the rest of the teams aren't far off. United have spent backet loads and Chelsea etc are good enough to compete. The difference is Pep has made the difference, he may have large resources at his disposal but he's made it work. Maureen, Wenger, Klopp and Conte have all struggled to make their teams consistently competitive, not because of quality, but mistakes and limitations exhibited by their management.
What about Conte? Won the title on his first try and looks like a good all round manager. Not sure what's happening at Chelsea, but maybe it's affecting him somewhat. Actually chances are high that there is some sort of drama at Chelsea so could do better with us and our more stable environment.
