• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

The Pep myth


AC Mack said:
Is he a decent, or a brilliant and successful manager?
Click to expand...
The blokes a brilliant and successful manager but I dont see him as a trendsetting greatest of all time, he’s always had the best teams in the countries he’s managed and ultimately has had a poor return on European success especially at City considering the money spent
Dick Fitzwell said:
Same can be said of all the other managers, could Klopp have won more?
I don’t know out of the last 6 seasons he’s won the league 4 times and it’s been close the only thing I think he could’ve won more in is the Champions League and FA Cup as they were beaten finalists.

You still haven’t named 5 better managers.
It is ok you know to admit at times that you’re not right 100%
Click to expand...
I’ll get them to ya today fella 👍🏻
 
Toronado said:
The blokes a brilliant and successful manager but I dont see him as a trendsetting greatest of all time, he’s always had the best teams in the countries he’s managed and ultimately has had a poor return on European success especially at City considering the money spent

I’ll get them to ya today fella 👍🏻
Click to expand...
Cheers fella, much appreciated. I do agree regarding his performances in the Champions League he should've at least got to more than 2 finals
 
Toronado said:
The blokes a brilliant and successful manager but I dont see him as a trendsetting greatest of all time, he’s always had the best teams in the countries he’s managed and ultimately has had a poor return on European success especially at City considering the money spent

I’ll get them to ya today fella 👍🏻
Click to expand...
You say he's always had the best teams but Barcelona finished 2nd and 3rd in the two seasons prior to him taking over and City 2nd and 4th. So he certainly didn't take over the best teams there (though obviously did at Bayern).

Some people will always view anything he does at City with an asterisk because of the money spent and I get that. My argument would be that the financial imbalance was wider in the 90s and 2000s than it is now. In the 90s, Blackburn briefly challenged Man United but were relegated within a couple of years, otherwise no-one else got anywhere close to them financially. Then Leeds did the same in the early 00s then imploded. Arsenal competed against them in the league but had nowhere near the same spending power. Then Chelsea under Abramovic dwarfed everyone else. Whereas nowadays Man United and Chelsea gave spent similar if not more in terms of transfer fees in wages, Liverpool can afford to outbid them for Wirtz, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea all have £100m+ players and Man United have an £80m player out on loan surplus to requirements.

You say you don't see him as the greatest of all time - who is saying he is? Its a straw man argument.
 
Good Teeth Keith said:
Sounds great until you realise everything has won was with the best team in that League on paper.

His Barcelona CL winning team had:
- Messi (possibly best player ever)
- Dani Alves (one of the best RBs of all time)
- Puyol (one of best CBs of all time)
- Xavi (one of best CMs of all time)
- Iniesta (as above)
- David Villa
- Mascherano
- Busquets

Etc

All in their prime. I could have won La Liga
with that team ffs.

Good manager but massively overrated.
Click to expand...
How do you rate Pep's record at Manchester City ?
 
I would agree that he has always had the best players at his dispoasal although at Barcelona he did develop a lot of them into what they became.
What I don't think you can ignore is the influence his type of football has had in transforming top level football. I honestly don't think any coach has changed football in the same way.
 
Has undoubtedly been great and successful. Possibly is on the decline, like many greats before him.
I certainly hope so cos he gets on my tits
 
Rhyd59 said:
How do you rate Pep's record at Manchester City ?
Click to expand...
Should have won the Champion’s League more than he has given he’s had the best squad on the planet for so long.

10 seasons:
1 CL win
2 FA cup win
6 Premier Leagues

Can argue he’s done very well in the League but overall, I think that’s about par given the resources he’s had available. Losing to Chelsea in the CL final not long ago was a massive failure and an example of poor management.
 
Good Teeth Keith said:
Should have won the Champion’s League more than he has given he’s had the best squad on the planet for so long.

10 seasons:
1 CL win
2 FA cup win
6 Premier Leagues

Can argue he’s done very well in the League but overall, I think that’s about par given the resources he’s had available. Losing to Chelsea in the CL final not long ago was a massive failure and an example of poor management.
Click to expand...
He's also won 4 league cups but I still agree with your statement. I'm surprised they've only won the FA cup twice with him in charge. I would have definitely guessed more if I was asked that question.
 
Danny999 said:
He's also won 4 league cups but I still agree with your statement. I'm surprised they've only won the FA cup twice with him in charge. I would have definitely guessed more if I was asked that question.
Click to expand...
I left League Cups out because no one really cares

I would have been surprised as well, I thought they’d have a far better record in the cup… and only 1 CL and 1 other final is definitely less than can be expected
 
Definitely Maybe said:
You say he's always had the best teams but Barcelona finished 2nd and 3rd in the two seasons prior to him taking over and City 2nd and 4th. So he certainly didn't take over the best teams there (though obviously did at Bayern).

Some people will always view anything he does at City with an asterisk because of the money spent and I get that. My argument would be that the financial imbalance was wider in the 90s and 2000s than it is now. In the 90s, Blackburn briefly challenged Man United but were relegated within a couple of years, otherwise no-one else got anywhere close to them financially. Then Leeds did the same in the early 00s then imploded. Arsenal competed against them in the league but had nowhere near the same spending power. Then Chelsea under Abramovic dwarfed everyone else. Whereas nowadays Man United and Chelsea gave spent similar if not more in terms of transfer fees in wages, Liverpool can afford to outbid them for Wirtz, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea all have £100m+ players and Man United have an £80m player out on loan surplus to requirements.

You say you don't see him as the greatest of all time - who is saying he is? Its a straw man argument.
Click to expand...
I get what your saying in regard to the financial balance but in terms of the teams at Barce and City he took over i’d argue that was more timing than skill, Real were going through manager after manager trying to find a balance until they got Jose and Zidane and in the premier league when he came in there was no real outstanding team and manager with Man Utd on the slide, Chelsea inconsistent, Liverpool still building and Arsenal just ever only there or there about to win nothing important.

So I dont think he had too much in his way in either case and as other have said in terms of the acid test of Europe hasn’t had the level of success and argued GOAT manager maybe should have.
Dick Fitzwell said:
Cheers fella, much appreciated. I do agree regarding his performances in the Champions League he should've at least got to more than 2 finals
Click to expand...
I’d put Ferguson, Ancelotti and Cruyff ahead of ( Cruyff for where football was at the time and his significant influence and change to football) i’d also put Jose ahead of him just for the Porto champions league win dragging a very impressive win out of a team that nobody expected and doing the same with Inter.

So off the top of my head he’d maybe be 5th but i’d have Luis Enrique and Zidane and other in competition for that place aswell.
 
Last edited:
Good Teeth Keith said:
I left League Cups out because no one really cares

I would have been surprised as well, I thought they’d have a far better record in the cup… and only 1 CL and 1 other final is definitely less than can be expected
Click to expand...
Beg to differ. The league cup is silverware which I'd be ecstatic to win. Just because the Mags won it doesn't mean we need to dilute the competition to the point that "no one really cares". It's still a trophy at the end of the day.
 
Toronado said:
I get what your saying in regard to the financial balance but in terms of the teams at Barce and City he took over i’d argue that was more timing than skill, Real were going through manager after manager trying to find a balance until they got Jose and Zidane and in the premier league when he came in there was no real outstanding team and manager with Man Utd on the slide, Chelsea inconsistent, Liverpool still building and Arsenal just ever only there or there about to win nothing important.

So I dont think he had too much in his way in either case and as other have said in terms of the acid test of Europe hasn’t had the level of success and argued GOAT manager maybe should have.

I’d put Ferguson, Ancelotti and Cruyff ahead of ( Cruyff for where football was at the time and his significant influence and change to football) i’d also put Jose ahead of him just for the Porto champions league win dragging a very impressive win out of a team that nobody expected and doing the same with Inter.

So off the top of my head he’d maybe be 5th but i’d have Luis Enrique and Zidane and other in competition for that place aswell.
Click to expand...
I would agree about Madrid before Mourinho but he was appointed in 2010 and competed with him during his last two years at Barca. In Europe he won the Champions League twice in 4 years, embarrassing arguably Fergie's best Man United team twice in the finals.

He took over Man City in 2016 after Leicester won the league, so yes I'd agree the top clubs were in transition. But Chelsea had a very strong team, they won the league in 2015 and 2017, it was only Mourinho going completely mental and alienating everyone in 15/16 that opened the door for Leicester. You're saying he always had the best team but he didn't when he took over and arguably Liverpool had a stronger first 11 when they were both competing for the title, especially the couple of years when they finished second on 97 points and won the Champions League then won the league on 99 points.

There's been a pattern throughout Pep's team at City that Liverpool pushed them all the way for two years then imploded then Arsenal pushed them for two years and led the title race both seasons then imploded. And in that time Klopp retired citing exhaustion (having walked out of Dortmund citing burnout after competing with Pep) and Arteta seemed to slowly descend into madness too last season. Meanwhile City continued to win. It's been said that you can compete with them for a year or two but the mental strength needed to maintain those standards over a longer period burns the players out, like how the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Blackburn occasionally pipped Man United but couldn't compete with Fergie over the long term.

But equally he seems to have burned himself and his players out this season. He's a massive system manager and fiercely loyal to players who know the system and twice now he didn't strengthen when key players got injured and aged in both the seasons Liverpool won the league. They go through a period every season where teams seem to get found out then he'll tweak things (inverted wingbacks, Stones stepping up, false 9 etc), teams start to copy and he'll change things again. But he often overthinks cup finals and seems to have exhausted himself reinventing the system over and over.

There's an argument that he's under achieved in Europe but so did Fergie - biggest club on the planet but only won the Champions League twice in 26 years and didnt even get out the group stage a few times. Ancelotti has been sacked by Madrid twice, Parma, Juventus, Chelsea, Bayern and Napoli. Mourinho famously cannot survive more than two years at any club before spectacularly destroying everybody and every thing. Debating who the best manager of all time is is totally pointless but I would say it's fair to say Pep is flawed but brilliant, had influenced numerous managers (one of the common reasons cited on here why people don't like him is because everyone else copies him) and has been exceptional over a relatively long period whilst his rivals have fell away.
 
Toronado said:
The blokes a brilliant and successful manager but I dont see him as a trendsetting greatest of all time, he’s always had the best teams in the countries he’s managed and ultimately has had a poor return on European success especially at City considering the money spent
Click to expand...

That's fine, but it seems quite a comedown from 'decent manager'.

He might have had the best teams, but he's revolutionised the way teams play football. Some people dont necessarily think for the better mind, which is fine. He's also one of the most decorated managers ever, and that doesn't just happen because of the players. There are countless examples of clubs with excellent players but their managers have failed with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top