|
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
We are not discussing who is the best team in the world or what the merit is based for that. We are discussing managers and pep's management.
At Barcelona he was dubbed the greatest coach alive and all this by his fans and you have no argument against it due to he was winning champions leagues for fun with his side. He then finally stepped away and went to Bayern, this is his first test without Messi in which we all (the non pep fans) started to really look at him. He however took over a side who just won the treble! Including the Champions league, he then failed to improve upon that, just making them semi final appearances at best which is not good enough after you win it so well the year before.
He changes teams styles to suit his own playstyle, which you are in right in that the club know that is what they are getting but it is still so much change he implements so quickly. You can also argue that the changes he made so fast to Bayern were helped by the fact that the league is not as competitive as La Liga let alone anywhere else, so his changes can be worked at better. This then finished his season with just domestic success which is fine if you are Bayern fan im sure but doesn't scream world's best manager to those from the outside does it. Im sure no one will give a shit about Brendan Rogers if he wins the next 3 domestic titles for Celtic in the Scottish Premiership now will they....
Pep of course needs time, but it's not like he hasn't already thrown millions of $$ at the squad already to make it better. Some questionable decisions too aka putting Aguero on the bench in the Barca game etcetc.
|
On October 27 2016 23:30 WillyWanker wrote:
Consistency at the highest level is what define best teams. The Champions League format isn't made for consistency. You can be lucky with the draws and win it because all the other big teams are getting eliminated on the other side of the bracket. You want to know who's the best? Play a league format with 20+ games. There's a reason why I don't consider Madrid to be the best despite them winning 2 of the last 3 CL. They won only 1 Liga in 8 years. Stop just analyzing results and start looking at how these results are achieved.
Pep qualified for 7 semi finals in a row. That's consistency at the highest level.
No, that is simply incorrect. Consistency is what define the most consistent team, or the best team for a specifice time frame, but never the best at a certain point in time. Current results are the only objective way we have to measure who the current best is, everything else is subjective. If you beat everyone else you're objectively the best, because in the end, in the final, you met the team that knocked out all other big teams, so your argument of "lucky draw" is invalid. What you are doing is twist arguments in a way that makes Barcelone the best team and Messi the best player, no matter what, because you're blindly fanboying non-stop, and it's getting quite old to be frank.
|
Nice straw man. The argument started because Guardiola was called overrated and I disagreed with that. Nobody has called him the worlds best coach alive.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
On October 27 2016 23:46 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 21:00 sharkie wrote:On October 27 2016 20:40 RvB wrote:On October 27 2016 19:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:
the difference between mourinho and pep is mou's early success wasnt thanks to him having godly teams at his disposal. pep had messi, xavi and iniesta all in their prime, not to mention the other world class players that made up the rest of the team.
he then moves to bayern which is arguably the 2nd best team in the world (or 3rd if you consider rm to be better) and dominates a league that doesnt have anyone else to win it anyway, but falls short in CL repeatedly.
mou won cl with fucking porto and inter and has won trophies in like...every league with a variety of teams of which only madrid is consistently considered to be top 5 in the world
and im not even a mou fanboy. yeah hes man utd's coach now but ive never been a fan of his teams/management approach A godly Barcelona which he helped create. Pique, Alves, Busquets, Pedro are all players which he took into the first team and he got rid of older players like Deco or Ronaldinho. Falls short in the CL? He gets into the semi finals every year. Of course that's no finals but consistency like that is a solid performance in itself. There aren't many teams or coaches who get into the semi finals year after year. The teams Mou has coached after Porto are: Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester United which are all top clubs. The inter team was really really good when they won the CL (although they collapsed afterwards). He basically failed at RM, the 2nd year at Chelsea and isn't doing well with Manchester United yet he's considered a top coach while Guardiola is overrated. Yes Guardiola relies on very strong teams but so does literally every top manager from Mourinho to LVG. Sometimes they fail but that doesn't mean they're immediatly overrated. Porto and Chelsea at the time Mourinho coached them were definitely not top clubs. Same can be said about Inter and ManUtd (third coach with mediocre results tells me that ManUtd squad is not top). No one can say if Barca would have become the powerhouse they were with or without Pep. But the truth is that both Barca and Bayern won tons of stuff without Pep. Yeah as Chelsea has proven you can play ass football and win the Champions league. He also benefited from alot of Portuguese players that were peaking at that time. But yes full credit for that win. Inter was a top club when Mou picked them up.. dafuq you on about. They had spent all of Morratis money on squad building and had been dominating Seria A since Calcio. They were the best that Italy had to offer. Winning with Inter was unusual sure, but they were very much a top team. Again full credit for that win. But by the same token you have to give Guardialo full credit for his wins. Why is that so hard ? If teams started to play like shit after Mourinho leaves them that probably means hes not someone who is good at creating a footballing culture that is designed to succeed.Thats why I call him the 5 hour energy manager. You get a boost, but then the crash afterwards is debilitating. As for Guardiola at Bayern, if you consider not winning the CL a failure, sure he failed. But really how is he supposed to "improve" on a team that won the treble ? Does that mean that when a team like United or Barca that won a treble and didnt win it the next year was because of the managers failure to "improve" them ? Rubbish.
You contradict yourself here for me. How can you call Pep great for all his wins at Barca and then say when Mourinho leaves a club and it goes to shit, Mourinho is a bad manager? Surely that is the other way round? If a team IMPROVES without Mourinho or Pep in it then that team has become better than the previous one? Has Barca improved since Pep left, nope not for me they haven't, however they have had the likes of Puyol Xavi retire and Iniesta get old fast but still that is fact. Bayern are yet to know if they have improved yet as we are early on but signs are they have not. Chelsea have improved since mourinho left 2nd time thats for sure, first time we were up and down. Inter did not improve and now mid table Serie A side...
Just that side of argument is silly for me.
|
On October 28 2016 00:05 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 23:46 Rebs wrote:On October 27 2016 21:00 sharkie wrote:On October 27 2016 20:40 RvB wrote:On October 27 2016 19:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:
the difference between mourinho and pep is mou's early success wasnt thanks to him having godly teams at his disposal. pep had messi, xavi and iniesta all in their prime, not to mention the other world class players that made up the rest of the team.
he then moves to bayern which is arguably the 2nd best team in the world (or 3rd if you consider rm to be better) and dominates a league that doesnt have anyone else to win it anyway, but falls short in CL repeatedly.
mou won cl with fucking porto and inter and has won trophies in like...every league with a variety of teams of which only madrid is consistently considered to be top 5 in the world
and im not even a mou fanboy. yeah hes man utd's coach now but ive never been a fan of his teams/management approach A godly Barcelona which he helped create. Pique, Alves, Busquets, Pedro are all players which he took into the first team and he got rid of older players like Deco or Ronaldinho. Falls short in the CL? He gets into the semi finals every year. Of course that's no finals but consistency like that is a solid performance in itself. There aren't many teams or coaches who get into the semi finals year after year. The teams Mou has coached after Porto are: Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester United which are all top clubs. The inter team was really really good when they won the CL (although they collapsed afterwards). He basically failed at RM, the 2nd year at Chelsea and isn't doing well with Manchester United yet he's considered a top coach while Guardiola is overrated. Yes Guardiola relies on very strong teams but so does literally every top manager from Mourinho to LVG. Sometimes they fail but that doesn't mean they're immediatly overrated. Porto and Chelsea at the time Mourinho coached them were definitely not top clubs. Same can be said about Inter and ManUtd (third coach with mediocre results tells me that ManUtd squad is not top). No one can say if Barca would have become the powerhouse they were with or without Pep. But the truth is that both Barca and Bayern won tons of stuff without Pep. Yeah as Chelsea has proven you can play ass football and win the Champions league. He also benefited from alot of Portuguese players that were peaking at that time. But yes full credit for that win. Inter was a top club when Mou picked them up.. dafuq you on about. They had spent all of Morratis money on squad building and had been dominating Seria A since Calcio. They were the best that Italy had to offer. Winning with Inter was unusual sure, but they were very much a top team. Again full credit for that win. But by the same token you have to give Guardialo full credit for his wins. Why is that so hard ? If teams started to play like shit after Mourinho leaves them that probably means hes not someone who is good at creating a footballing culture that is designed to succeed.Thats why I call him the 5 hour energy manager. You get a boost, but then the crash afterwards is debilitating. As for Guardiola at Bayern, if you consider not winning the CL a failure, sure he failed. But really how is he supposed to "improve" on a team that won the treble ? Does that mean that when a team like United or Barca that won a treble and didnt win it the next year was because of the managers failure to "improve" them ? Rubbish. You contradict yourself here for me. How can you call Pep great for all his wins at Barca and then say when Mourinho leaves a club and it goes to shit, Mourinho is a bad manager? Surely that is the other way round? If a team IMPROVES without Mourinho or Pep in it then that team has become better than the previous one? Has Barca improved since Pep left, nope not for me they haven't, however they have had the likes of Puyol Xavi retire and Iniesta get old fast but still that is fact. Bayern are yet to know if they have improved yet as we are early on but signs are they have not. Chelsea have improved since mourinho left 2nd time thats for sure, first time we were up and down. Inter did not improve and now mid table Serie A side... Just that side of argument is silly for me.
Where did I say Mourinho is a bad manager ? Being a manager and creating a footballing culture are exclusive things. You can be a good manager and be bad at creating a lasting culture of success. As Mourinho has shown throughout his career.
Your finding sill an argument that doesnt exist, maybe thats why you find it silly. Something something strawman.
Both of them are good managers, applying different standards to them is the silly thing.
And heres the other thing, very few people are giving Mourinho much shit for United being bad, because his team is just bad, you could give him shit for spending his money badly but these are difficult decisions that can be hit or miss and really they sold shirts so whatever right ?
But you could give him shit for last year for taking a side that was by far the best in England and letting it turn to shit because he was managing badly, there is no 2 ways about that scenario.
Guardialo has yet to fail in that respect mind you. All this stuff about "I could manage Bayern or Barca.. so ez, soo good squad" is disrespectful not to just the coach, but the players and everything that goes behind making these teams as good as they are and to me that is the kind of comment that tells me people dont know the first thing about football let alone its intricacies.
As for the improvement part. This is such a vague introduction. So before i even address whether that even matters or not, in terms of creating a footballing culture that succeeds let me get this out of the way first.
As an example Team X wins treble under manager A
Next 2 seasons Team X wins just 2 domestic titles under same manager
Does that mean manager A is now bad or he failed to "improve" the team ?
Then manager B comes along wins another couple of domestic titles and wins CL in third year.
Where are we assigning the improvement ? You cant really in terms of results "improve" teams that have won everything.
The only thing you can do is to match it (in this case record breaking performances that have occured less than 10 times in history) or the only way to go is down.
So my question Pande is, you keep talking about improving, but you havent clarified what .. results ? Style of play? How fun they are to watch ? What is the measure here ? What about the time frames ? Season to season ? Or maybe with a certain core squad.
The lack of nuance is startling.
Being vague about it is pretty easy to hide behind because you can change your metric to suite your argument. So please clarify that first before talking about improvement. Otherwise to me this whole improvement argument is pretty bullshit.
|
On October 28 2016 00:05 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 23:46 Rebs wrote:On October 27 2016 21:00 sharkie wrote:On October 27 2016 20:40 RvB wrote:On October 27 2016 19:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:
the difference between mourinho and pep is mou's early success wasnt thanks to him having godly teams at his disposal. pep had messi, xavi and iniesta all in their prime, not to mention the other world class players that made up the rest of the team.
he then moves to bayern which is arguably the 2nd best team in the world (or 3rd if you consider rm to be better) and dominates a league that doesnt have anyone else to win it anyway, but falls short in CL repeatedly.
mou won cl with fucking porto and inter and has won trophies in like...every league with a variety of teams of which only madrid is consistently considered to be top 5 in the world
and im not even a mou fanboy. yeah hes man utd's coach now but ive never been a fan of his teams/management approach A godly Barcelona which he helped create. Pique, Alves, Busquets, Pedro are all players which he took into the first team and he got rid of older players like Deco or Ronaldinho. Falls short in the CL? He gets into the semi finals every year. Of course that's no finals but consistency like that is a solid performance in itself. There aren't many teams or coaches who get into the semi finals year after year. The teams Mou has coached after Porto are: Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester United which are all top clubs. The inter team was really really good when they won the CL (although they collapsed afterwards). He basically failed at RM, the 2nd year at Chelsea and isn't doing well with Manchester United yet he's considered a top coach while Guardiola is overrated. Yes Guardiola relies on very strong teams but so does literally every top manager from Mourinho to LVG. Sometimes they fail but that doesn't mean they're immediatly overrated. Porto and Chelsea at the time Mourinho coached them were definitely not top clubs. Same can be said about Inter and ManUtd (third coach with mediocre results tells me that ManUtd squad is not top). No one can say if Barca would have become the powerhouse they were with or without Pep. But the truth is that both Barca and Bayern won tons of stuff without Pep. Yeah as Chelsea has proven you can play ass football and win the Champions league. He also benefited from alot of Portuguese players that were peaking at that time. But yes full credit for that win. Inter was a top club when Mou picked them up.. dafuq you on about. They had spent all of Morratis money on squad building and had been dominating Seria A since Calcio. They were the best that Italy had to offer. Winning with Inter was unusual sure, but they were very much a top team. Again full credit for that win. But by the same token you have to give Guardialo full credit for his wins. Why is that so hard ? If teams started to play like shit after Mourinho leaves them that probably means hes not someone who is good at creating a footballing culture that is designed to succeed.Thats why I call him the 5 hour energy manager. You get a boost, but then the crash afterwards is debilitating. As for Guardiola at Bayern, if you consider not winning the CL a failure, sure he failed. But really how is he supposed to "improve" on a team that won the treble ? Does that mean that when a team like United or Barca that won a treble and didnt win it the next year was because of the managers failure to "improve" them ? Rubbish. You contradict yourself here for me. How can you call Pep great for all his wins at Barca and then say when Mourinho leaves a club and it goes to shit, Mourinho is a bad manager? Surely that is the other way round? If a team IMPROVES without Mourinho or Pep in it then that team has become better than the previous one? Has Barca improved since Pep left, nope not for me they haven't, however they have had the likes of Puyol Xavi retire and Iniesta get old fast but still that is fact. Bayern are yet to know if they have improved yet as we are early on but signs are they have not. Chelsea have improved since mourinho left 2nd time thats for sure, first time we were up and down. Inter did not improve and now mid table Serie A side... Just that side of argument is silly for me.
I dont want to keep arguing further about Pep but imo Barca has become a better team. Especially two seasons ago they were the best team ever in my eyes. Their top3 is so sick.
|
I think the problem here is that people take criticism to mean that something is awful.
I don't think anyone would say that Pep is a bad coach. He's easily one of the best in the world right now; you're off your fucking rocker if you think otherwise. However, there have been many, many, many people who praised him as the 2nd coming of Jesus for how well he did at Barcelona, but the fact is that his inability to do anything in the CL with Bayern is hard proof that there are some things lacking about his style. No, Consistent semifinal appearances for a team that should make it to the semi's every year isn't a success; Bayern is easily one of the 3 best teams in the world, and the difference between Bayern, Barcelona, and Real Madrid is so minuscule that Bayern should've been able to make it to the finals at least once, if not win it.
The biggest problem is that not only did Pep not make it to the finals with Bayern, he lost to all three major Spanish teams, and he was tactically humiliated each time. These weren't super close games that Bayern lost on penalties or bad calls; Bayern got their lunch served to them by both Barca and RM, and still didn't look particularly great against AM.
Now I don't think that Man City's current predicament is anything to criticize Pep for that much; I just don't think Man City is that good right now and it will take Pep at least a full year to turn that ship around. That said, There's plenty of valid criticism of Pep and the mantra of "greatest coach ever", which has been incredibly prevalent since his Barca days, even if Pep fans want to pretend that stuff doesn't exist.
It's the same thing with managers like Ancelotti, Mou, Simeone, Klopp, Tuchel, Conte, etc. All of these managers are really damn good managers, but the moment something questionable starts to happen or a weakness shows up, they get criticism for it and then both sides are up in arms about the manager's performance. Every one of these managers has some kind of weakness in how they work. It's just unreasonable to think that they don't. However, we still have to realize that they are all some of the best managers in the world, and there's only so much they can do with what they have.
|
Lucas Perez, 6 months out, jesus christ does wenger even has a medic, therapist or kinesiologist ?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
On October 28 2016 01:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I think the problem here is that people take criticism to mean that something is awful.
I don't think anyone would say that Pep is a bad coach. He's easily one of the best in the world right now; you're off your fucking rocker if you think otherwise. However, there have been many, many, many people who praised him as the 2nd coming of Jesus for how well he did at Barcelona, but the fact is that his inability to do anything in the CL with Bayern is hard proof that there are some things lacking about his style. No, Consistent semifinal appearances for a team that should make it to the semi's every year isn't a success; Bayern is easily one of the 3 best teams in the world, and the difference between Bayern, Barcelona, and Real Madrid is so minuscule that Bayern should've been able to make it to the finals at least once, if not win it.
The biggest problem is that not only did Pep not make it to the finals with Bayern, he lost to all three major Spanish teams, and he was tactically humiliated each time. These weren't super close games that Bayern lost on penalties or bad calls; Bayern got their lunch served to them by both Barca and RM, and still didn't look particularly great against AM.
Now I don't think that Man City's current predicament is anything to criticize Pep for that much; I just don't think Man City is that good right now and it will take Pep at least a full year to turn that ship around. That said, There's plenty of valid criticism of Pep and the mantra of "greatest coach ever", which has been incredibly prevalent since his Barca days, even if Pep fans want to pretend that stuff doesn't exist.
It's the same thing with managers like Ancelotti, Mou, Simeone, Klopp, Tuchel, Conte, etc. All of these managers are really damn good managers, but the moment something questionable starts to happen or a weakness shows up, they get criticism for it and then both sides are up in arms about the manager's performance. Every one of these managers has some kind of weakness in how they work. It's just unreasonable to think that they don't. However, we still have to realize that they are all some of the best managers in the world, and there's only so much they can do with what they have.
This is 100% the reasoning. On pep points and why the questions are being raised now. He was so highly praised at Barca it was untrue. Now he is learning new countries and new ways and isn't shining as brightly at all.
|
On October 28 2016 01:16 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 01:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I think the problem here is that people take criticism to mean that something is awful.
I don't think anyone would say that Pep is a bad coach. He's easily one of the best in the world right now; you're off your fucking rocker if you think otherwise. However, there have been many, many, many people who praised him as the 2nd coming of Jesus for how well he did at Barcelona, but the fact is that his inability to do anything in the CL with Bayern is hard proof that there are some things lacking about his style. No, Consistent semifinal appearances for a team that should make it to the semi's every year isn't a success; Bayern is easily one of the 3 best teams in the world, and the difference between Bayern, Barcelona, and Real Madrid is so minuscule that Bayern should've been able to make it to the finals at least once, if not win it.
The biggest problem is that not only did Pep not make it to the finals with Bayern, he lost to all three major Spanish teams, and he was tactically humiliated each time. These weren't super close games that Bayern lost on penalties or bad calls; Bayern got their lunch served to them by both Barca and RM, and still didn't look particularly great against AM.
Now I don't think that Man City's current predicament is anything to criticize Pep for that much; I just don't think Man City is that good right now and it will take Pep at least a full year to turn that ship around. That said, There's plenty of valid criticism of Pep and the mantra of "greatest coach ever", which has been incredibly prevalent since his Barca days, even if Pep fans want to pretend that stuff doesn't exist.
It's the same thing with managers like Ancelotti, Mou, Simeone, Klopp, Tuchel, Conte, etc. All of these managers are really damn good managers, but the moment something questionable starts to happen or a weakness shows up, they get criticism for it and then both sides are up in arms about the manager's performance. Every one of these managers has some kind of weakness in how they work. It's just unreasonable to think that they don't. However, we still have to realize that they are all some of the best managers in the world, and there's only so much they can do with what they have. This is 100% the reasoning. On pep points and why the questions are being raised now. He was so highly praised at Barca it was untrue. Now he is learning new countries and new ways and isn't shining as brightly at all.
I don't buy the "new countries" line of reasoning; English football style doesn't keep them from being demolished in Europe 
I think it almost entirely has to do with the individual players and their quality. Pep's desired style requires a lot of technical skill but also quite a bit of intelligence on the field, and is probably something that none of the Man City players are used to. Not only that, I just think that he doesn't have the quality in certain positions necessary to pull the style off successfully.
|
Tbh if Pep forces City players to play his style or gtfo AND then wins the PL in his first year, he will be beyond genius in my head. A stubborn genius.
|
On October 28 2016 00:01 InFiNitY[pG] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 23:30 WillyWanker wrote:
Consistency at the highest level is what define best teams. The Champions League format isn't made for consistency. You can be lucky with the draws and win it because all the other big teams are getting eliminated on the other side of the bracket. You want to know who's the best? Play a league format with 20+ games. There's a reason why I don't consider Madrid to be the best despite them winning 2 of the last 3 CL. They won only 1 Liga in 8 years. Stop just analyzing results and start looking at how these results are achieved.
Pep qualified for 7 semi finals in a row. That's consistency at the highest level. No, that is simply incorrect. Consistency is what define the most consistent team, or the best team for a specifice time frame, but never the best at a certain point in time. Current results are the only objective way we have to measure who the current best is, everything else is subjective. If you beat everyone else you're objectively the best, because in the end, in the final, you met the team that knocked out all other big teams, so your argument of "lucky draw" is invalid. What you are doing is twist arguments in a way that makes Barcelone the best team and Messi the best player, no matter what, because you're blindly fanboying non-stop, and it's getting quite old to be frank.
Other ways to define who's the best might be subjective, but "current results" are worse. What's the time frame? Last game? Last month? Last season? Just deciding that is subjective.
So you mean that the best national team in Europe now is Portugal? That Belgium was the best team in the world for 3 years (FIFA ranking)? That Leicester is the best British team? That Nice is better than PSG? That Sevilla is better than Atletico? I have tons of these if you want.
People nowadays are so focused on pure results and stats, they never talk about content. They see a result and they analyze that. Like last time City drew against Everton, "City is losing steam", when even Everton players said they were extremely lucky to leave with one point. Like when City plays a great game against Barça last week during the first half, and when they lose 4-0 because of stupid individual mistakes, Pep is blamed for not fielding Aguero. I also have a thousand examples like these if you want, even for teams that I'm not a "fanboy" of...
Now about the "lucky draw". What you said is just plain stupid. Playing big teams doesn't affect your physical/mental conditions? You mean that if I play Barça + Bayern + Real to reach the final, all of this in 3 months while fighting for the title, and on the other side of the bracket the other team plays Leverkussen/Arsenal/Porto; if that team beats me in the final, in that ONE 90 minutes-where-everything-can-happen-game, they're better than me?
Disregarding a team's route to their victory/defeat and just analyzing the latest game to decide who's the best is stupid. It's like that unofficial "King of the Hill" title TL has for some games. It's funny of course, but you wouldn't take it seriously, would you?
|
On October 28 2016 01:34 Salteador Neo wrote:
Tbh if Pep forces City players to play his style or gtfo AND then wins the PL in his first year, he will be beyond genius in my head. A stubborn genius.
Thing is they might not even have to execute his style properly to win which is the funny thing about the league. I already said this early on but he doesnt have the players to play his style. Also the way his teams play, they need rest or you get alot of bad runs with players just being fatigued mentally more than physically. It took Klopp a while to build a team that doesnt rely on specific individuals to at the very least win games when he his best players arent around and for that you need a high iq and high intensity squad not just a good first 11 thats not good enough for the amount of games you play in England.
|
On October 27 2016 20:40 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 19:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:
the difference between mourinho and pep is mou's early success wasnt thanks to him having godly teams at his disposal. pep had messi, xavi and iniesta all in their prime, not to mention the other world class players that made up the rest of the team.
he then moves to bayern which is arguably the 2nd best team in the world (or 3rd if you consider rm to be better) and dominates a league that doesnt have anyone else to win it anyway, but falls short in CL repeatedly.
mou won cl with fucking porto and inter and has won trophies in like...every league with a variety of teams of which only madrid is consistently considered to be top 5 in the world
and im not even a mou fanboy. yeah hes man utd's coach now but ive never been a fan of his teams/management approach A godly Barcelona which he helped create. Pique, Alves, Busquets, Pedro are all players which he took into the first team and he got rid of older players like Deco or Ronaldinho. Falls short in the CL? He gets into the semi finals every year. Of course that's no finals but consistency like that is a solid performance in itself. There aren't many teams or coaches who get into the semi finals year after year. The teams Mou has coached after Porto are: Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid, Chelsea and Manchester United which are all top clubs. The inter team was really really good when they won the CL (although they collapsed afterwards). He basically failed at RM, the 2nd year at Chelsea and isn't doing well with Manchester United yet he's considered a top coach while Guardiola is overrated. Yes Guardiola relies on very strong teams but so does literally every top manager from Mourinho to LVG. Sometimes they fail but that doesn't mean they're immediatly overrated.
No they don't. SAF won 1 and made multiple CL final appearances (lost twice to a godly Barca squad) and also won multiple PLs with a mediocre squad (continued to win PL even after Ronaldo left). Just take a look at the squad that demolished Arsenal 8-2 for example. Simeone made 2 CL finals and won a Liga with a far lesser squad than Barca or Bayern.
I don't deny Guardiola is a very good manager but I still think he's overrated. He has managed 2 of the 3 best teams in the world and had one of the best players ever to play the game. Yes he created some good players as you mentioned above however he did have the help of a very good academy and the team had just won the CL not too long ago before he took over.
Also, making the CL semis with Bayern 3 years in a row isn't considered "success". Bayern is a top 3 team and should be at least making the finals once. And seriously speaking winning the Bundesliga isn't that big of an achievement, with Bayern's financial advantage it wouldn't surprise me if they won the next 10.
Let's see what happens this season with City, if he manages to win the PL I'll gladly concede my statement.
|
On October 28 2016 10:52 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 01:34 Salteador Neo wrote:
Tbh if Pep forces City players to play his style or gtfo AND then wins the PL in his first year, he will be beyond genius in my head. A stubborn genius. Thing is they might not even have to execute his style properly to win which is the funny thing about the league. I already said this early on but he doesnt have the players to play his style. Also the way his teams play, they need rest or you get alot of bad runs with players just being fatigued mentally more than physically. It took Klopp a while to build a team that doesnt rely on specific individuals to at the very least win games when he his best players arent around and for that you need a high iq and high intensity squad not just a good first 11 thats not good enough for the amount of games you play in England.
the whole point about Guardiola imho is that for some fucking reason he knows only a way to make his team play, and that way is viable only for a few teams that are stacked with world class players. A great manager is someone that can adapt to the team he's managing and bring out the best from the players under him. I think that Ancelotti is one perfect example of this, and Mourinho has done it with at least 4 teams (Porto Inter Chelsea first time and Real Madrid) but he's struggling to do the same in the last two years. If you have a team build with physically strong players and fast runners you must use those weapons to create your soccer imho, when Mourinho went to Inter taking Mancini's spot he found a team that played only one kind of soccer (ball possession at low pace, get the ball to Ibrahimovic when he's in a good position, believe that he will create something) and to make the team a winner one he changed that with his idea of a high pace and strong defend with fast counter soccer because Inter had at that time the right players to do that (Maicon, Cambiasso, Stankovic).
I don't think that Guardiola can do the same, City is a team filled with high paced players (Silva Navas Aguero Sterling Nolito Sanè) and physically strong ones (Fernando Fernandinho Kolarov Otamendi De Bruyne Sagna) and have only two players that techically are exceptional for their role, Gundogan and Kompany. So how can you hope to play tiki-taka with this team? He's bound to fail if he doesn't adapt his soccer...
|
On October 28 2016 16:18 Savatage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 10:52 Rebs wrote:On October 28 2016 01:34 Salteador Neo wrote:
Tbh if Pep forces City players to play his style or gtfo AND then wins the PL in his first year, he will be beyond genius in my head. A stubborn genius. Thing is they might not even have to execute his style properly to win which is the funny thing about the league. I already said this early on but he doesnt have the players to play his style. Also the way his teams play, they need rest or you get alot of bad runs with players just being fatigued mentally more than physically. It took Klopp a while to build a team that doesnt rely on specific individuals to at the very least win games when he his best players arent around and for that you need a high iq and high intensity squad not just a good first 11 thats not good enough for the amount of games you play in England. the whole point about Guardiola imho is that for some fucking reason he knows only a way to make his team play, and that way is viable only for a few teams that are stacked with world class players. A great manager is someone that can adapt to the team he's managing and bring out the best from the players under him. I think that Ancelotti is one perfect example of this, and Mourinho has done it with at least 4 teams (Porto Inter Chelsea first time and Real Madrid) but he's struggling to do the same in the last two years. If you have a team build with physically strong players and fast runners you must use those weapons to create your soccer imho, when Mourinho went to Inter taking Mancini's spot he found a team that played only one kind of soccer (ball possession at low pace, get the ball to Ibrahimovic when he's in a good position, believe that he will create something) and to make the team a winner one he changed that with his idea of a high pace and strong defend with fast counter soccer because Inter had at that time the right players to do that (Maicon, Cambiasso, Stankovic). I don't think that Guardiola can do the same, City is a team filled with high paced players (Silva Navas Aguero Sterling Nolito Sanè) and physically strong ones (Fernando Fernandinho Kolarov Otamendi De Bruyne Sagna) and have only two players that techically are exceptional for their role, Gundogan and Kompany. So how can you hope to play tiki-taka with this team? He's bound to fail if he doesn't adapt his soccer...
Well, presumably he talked to city management before being offered, and taking the job. If one of his conditions was that he creates a tiki taka team, and management promised him time and resources to do so, I don't think you can claim that he needs to adapt, and let's face it. You don't need to have amazing players for tiki taka. You need a Xavi, and a goalie who can stand his man when the defensive line is past the midfield. The rest just mainly need to have accurate passes and decent movement... and a lot of time drilling where to be when. Maybe he sees Kompany in Xavi's role, or maybe he misjudged.
If Guardiola was up for a challenge of playing a different style and promised to try with city's current batch of players, you might have a point (but still too early imho). In general, however, we don't know what he is trying to build at City yet. And I don't think you can say he failed based on a fifth of a season.
|
On October 28 2016 16:18 Savatage wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2016 10:52 Rebs wrote:On October 28 2016 01:34 Salteador Neo wrote:
Tbh if Pep forces City players to play his style or gtfo AND then wins the PL in his first year, he will be beyond genius in my head. A stubborn genius. Thing is they might not even have to execute his style properly to win which is the funny thing about the league. I already said this early on but he doesnt have the players to play his style. Also the way his teams play, they need rest or you get alot of bad runs with players just being fatigued mentally more than physically. It took Klopp a while to build a team that doesnt rely on specific individuals to at the very least win games when he his best players arent around and for that you need a high iq and high intensity squad not just a good first 11 thats not good enough for the amount of games you play in England. the whole point about Guardiola imho is that for some fucking reason he knows only a way to make his team play, and that way is viable only for a few teams that are stacked with world class players. A great manager is someone that can adapt to the team he's managing and bring out the best from the players under him. I think that Ancelotti is one perfect example of this, and Mourinho has done it with at least 4 teams (Porto Inter Chelsea first time and Real Madrid) but he's struggling to do the same in the last two years. If you have a team build with physically strong players and fast runners you must use those weapons to create your soccer imho, when Mourinho went to Inter taking Mancini's spot he found a team that played only one kind of soccer (ball possession at low pace, get the ball to Ibrahimovic when he's in a good position, believe that he will create something) and to make the team a winner one he changed that with his idea of a high pace and strong defend with fast counter soccer because Inter had at that time the right players to do that (Maicon, Cambiasso, Stankovic). I don't think that Guardiola can do the same, City is a team filled with high paced players (Silva Navas Aguero Sterling Nolito Sanè) and physically strong ones (Fernando Fernandinho Kolarov Otamendi De Bruyne Sagna) and have only two players that techically are exceptional for their role, Gundogan and Kompany. So how can you hope to play tiki-taka with this team? He's bound to fail if he doesn't adapt his soccer...
I think its pretty stupid to suggest that hes making this team play tiki taka and thats the problem. Thats not where they are struggling. Actually they arent even playing tiki taka. Just because you always pass out the back doesnt mean you are playnig tiki taka.
Which to me again is indicative of the fact that people are just making assumptions of results instead of actually watching the games.
Its not the tiki taka part that City are struggling with, the problems are exactly what you are saying his players are made for, alot of Guardialos defensive style (similar to Klopp) is the high press.
If you look at alot of Barcelonas goals they dont come form tiki taka or passing through other teams, they do that ofcourse because its Barca but alot of them are based on nicks and high pinches in midfield that allow for fast counters.
The idea is that the counter starts up the field. + Show Spoiler +As opposed to the drab bus park style that rely on the other team to over commit to break you)
Here Guardiola is already looking to overload parts of the field on the oppositions side, to nick the ball and use those fast paced strong players who should at the very least have enough technical ability to run a counter properly.
Problem is that requires a very high IQ and alot of practice in a system. Otherwise you can end up looking like a bunch of elementary school kids playing footie during lunch break where everyone runs around chasing the ball like an idiot.
You also cant be playing games left and right. Some players are exceptions. Messi for example didnt run all over the pitch like a Pedro used to for Guardiolas teams, so he can pretty much play every game.
But England is alot more physical. So its hard to keep up. I was like 99% sure the drop would come because you just cant play like that all the time. The Spurs game was a good example of a team that was just second best at everything energy wise and City got outplayed because they were just too slow. Where was the physicality and pace then ?
On a larger point, If you are going to be an every man "adapt" your style to suit your situation manager then you get a Mourinho's, Conte's or Simeons, who will give you some good games, but mostly shit games, but he will win. Great for your team, pretty meh for everyone else
Or you can try to play the way you want and win the way you want and make enough adjustments along the way for your style to succeed. Pochettino, Klopp, Guardiola.
One method builds a foundation that can create cultures that allow you to succeed well beyond your tenure. The other creates bots that can only do what they are told for game day and lacks identity. Both are perfectly fine, but I like the idea of building a brand of football which will last for a while regardless of how successful it was as long as it won something.
You can figure out which one is which.
Just like it was premature to hand City the title 5 games in, its just as premature to say "lol city bad Pep sux, only play tiki taka lolz".
|
Guardiola, IMO, lacks the players to support his game, and not just in the specific positoin but the quality, im not saying Aguero, Nolito, De Bruyne, etc... are bad players but they are not Iniesta, Xavi, Messi, and company.
So that translate on not having a clear second plan to support the reduction in quality compared to Bayern or Barcelona, the fact that he lacks a clear defensive midfield (not exctly, but so far Fernandihno and Fernando tend to go forward a little too much so they end up leaving quite the space, unlike Mascherano (in his prime) and Xavi and to some extend Busquest which are clearly tend to distribuite themself better on the field creating a "wall" (hehehe))
Then you have problems because theres no Messi here, when City has problems in a game, they dont have that Messi or real star player (De Bruyne is slowly becoming that) that could create something out of nothing, Aguero did that a couple of years ago but he is pretty much the shadow of his formerself.
Then the defense, which in City is something else, Otamendi, Zabaleta and Kolarov are hardly Pique or Puyol
Everyone remembers how much did that Barcelona attack, but there was a clear defensive position created to recover the ball and be the first pass, so Messi and company didnt had to go back to the midfield to get the ball, City is not exactly like that and they lack a first pass. That Barcelona (And Bayern too) had a midfield capable of controling the game with great recovery and gret first pass so the pressure was never lost, this City doesnt have that.
Is Guardiola trying to force that ? I dont know, who knows honestly, it would be kind obivous considering thats his game, and its what made him a winner in Barcelona... And if he is doing that, is that wrong ? I would say... i really dont know lol but if he lacks the players needed for his playstyle im sure as hell he is good enough to see that and create something else, so far, ive yet to see it but its still a little too early to say #GuardiolaOut (lol)
Those are my 2 cents about Guardiola problems in City
I might be wrong tho, im probably wrong lol
|
On October 28 2016 23:15 Rebs wrote:
Just like it was premature to hand City the title 5 games in, its just as premature to say "lol city bad Pep sux, only play tiki taka lolz".
here you got me :-D
of course my analysis could be wrong but i watched some games of City and i feel that the way that Pep wants to play doesn't suit at all the players he has at disposal. And because he can't really sell all of them in the next transfer window, he should try to find a way to get those good players play in a way that suit them
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
City problem is maybe a bit tika taka way as isn't that the style which includes the goalkeeper in which vs Barcelona it was very highlighted in the fact that the keeper he has cannot do it? Bravo supposed to be the super crazy guy who is good with his feet and high off his line waiting. However he has been found wanting in the yanited derby where he should have been off for the foul on Rooney. Followed it up which a poor performance to another team, then vs Barcelona well that was just idiotic? So maybe that is the issue, he won't realize that playing 100% press press press style is not the optimal way to go when he is trying to juggle 10 games in 3 weeks over the festive period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
