Best Coach in the World

[The Abusement Park]

The club also greatly increased spending though, resources available to Guardiola were not available to his predecessors.

Still doesn’t change the fact that Pep(and obviously Messi) was in fact at worst the 2nd biggest catalyst for the greatest club team in history.

 

[Evilo]

I wasn't hanging around here back then, however I recall there was a general perception in England that Drogba's first year fell below expectations.

It didn't help that expectations were sky-high following his mighty performances against English teams in the 2003-4 UEFA Cup.

Sure.
The problem mainly was that EPL fans here claimed he wasn't good enough, wasn't "EPL proven" and that he was just a big guy with zero talent. HFboards scouts for you.

 

[Evilo]

Where would you guys rank Zidane? Every year he's been with Madrid, he's delivered the Champions League.

The only season he didn't was when he re-joined after they were eliminated by Ajax last season under Solari.

I don't find ZZ to be a good strategist.
There's no denying though that nobody manages egos like him. Neither Klopp nor Guardiola can do what he does.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Still doesn’t change the fact that Pep(and obviously Messi) was in fact at worst the 2nd biggest catalyst for the greatest club team in history.

And to add to this, this right here doesn’t absolve him from any criticism as a coach as no coach is immune to criticism. I do think the CL criticisms are fair, though as he has struggled or had some big losses that just shouldn’t have happened. The last couple years I think Klopp has surpassed him, but overall Pep is the best manager since SAF retired.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I don't find ZZ to be a good strategist.
There's no denying though that nobody manages egos like him. Neither Klopp nor Guardiola can do what he does.

Yeah he’s unbelievable at this, and it’s a very important skill to have while working at a top club. But as you said from a tactical standpoint he has seemed to get exposed and hasn’t been able adjust successfully. Coming up with a good strategy is important, but adjusting when teams counter it is equally as important.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Good sequence of posts saved this thread. TAP pretty much nailed it along with evilo

 

[Cassano]

Yeah he’s unbelievable at this, and it’s a very important skill to have while working at a top club. But as you said from a tactical standpoint he has seemed to get exposed and hasn’t been able adjust successfully. Coming up with a good strategy is important, but adjusting when teams counter it is equally as important.

I don't find ZZ to be a good strategist.
There's no denying though that nobody manages egos like him. Neither Klopp nor Guardiola can do what he does.

Crossing to Ronaldo seems like a good strategy, no?

 

[les Habs]

As much as I hate Mourinho, I disagree with that bolded part.
They had a somewhat tough group and came out of it then eliminated United. then Lyon which was a seriously good CL contender back then Deportivo, which was also a very good team that had eliminated both Juve and Milan and then Monaco who had beaten new riches Chelsea and Real's galacticos (Zidane, Ronaldo and all).
The final was dull because Monaco's entire team was lost under the pressure and their captain went out after 15 minutes off an injury.
But there's no denying it was a great achievement.

Mourinho also beat some strong Chelsea teams, there's no denying that, and one way to do it was spend like crazy. He went crazy on Essien, Drogba and others. Drogba here was seen a as a huge signing failure back then, on this forum. After his first season people were claiming he sucked and wasn't PL quality (I'm dead serious).
The overpayment for both was crazy at the time though.
After his Chelsea split, to me, it all went downhill for him. His tactics became more and more negative and his behaviour totally unacceptable. His Inter tenure is way overrated. If the ref had known what an offside was, he wouldn't have reached the final. His Real tenure is IMO a huge blackeye to Real, which was in fact the sentiment of many old Real stars.

To me, Mourinho has lost it since 2007. He's nowhere near a top 3 coach since then. And most likely not a top 10 coach since 2010.

I stand by that. It was not a strong CL season. That's not to say they didn't have a good run relative to the strength of the tournament, but not a strong tournament overall. The teams in the knockout stages and the draw on top of that, definitely a weaker CL season. That said to win the Uefa Cup and then the following year the CL is still a great achievement with Porto. That doesn't change some of the context though.

The rest of it I agree with. To put the Chelsea spending into context, they spent about 235 million net during his first run. That was for three seasons, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07. Barca's net spend while Guardiola was there was about 136 million and that was for four seasons, 08-09, 09-10, 10-11, 11-12. On top of that it was later in the transfer market which is significant because prices went up.

No.
Busquets had only been playing for the B team, same for Pedro.
Xavi was a very good player but far from the top 3 midfielder he became (Pep was a big part in that).

Pep's work at Barça is being underrated.

You guys don't remember what had happened the previous year, with a washed up Ronaldinho, Deco, etc
Finishing almost 20 points behind Madrid including being raped 4-1 by them.

The way the club transformed was unbelievable and Pep was the catalyst

Exactly what I've been saying and I'll just add that both Ronaldinho and Deco, two of the previous team's most important players, were sold the Summer Guardiola took over.

The club also greatly increased spending though, resources available to Guardiola were not available to his predecessors.

Not entirely. If you look at gross spend the club had a few seasons prior to that where the spending wasn't far off and there were a couple of Summers where the gross spend prior to Guardiola exceeded that of the 10-11 and 11-12 seasons. Some rather significantly in fact. More important than gross spend though, if you look at net spend the numbers aren't that significant:

08-09: 41 million
09-10: 88 million
10-11: 20 million
11-12: 13 million

Looking at the years prior to Guardiola taking charge:

07-08: 54 million - more spent than 3 of 4 Guardiola seasons
06-07: 18 million - more spent than 1 of Guardiola's seasons
05-06: -3 million
04-05: 63 million - more spent than 3 of 4 Guardiola seasons
03-04: 31 million - more spent than 2 of 4 Guardiola seasons
01-02: 58 million - more spent than 3 of 4 Guardiola's seasons

That's from Transfermarkt. None of that takes into account the market/inflation. So to say the club greatly increased spending and that resources available to Guardiola weren't available to his predecessors is largely inaccurate.

There are definitely teams that have spent a lot and not done a lot with it. Liverpool has done it before. That said those teams already had a wealth of talent. Especially Barca and Bayern, but even City was full of top talents like Aguero, Silva, de Bruyne, Sterling, Kompany, Fernandinho, etc.

Now again, I'm not trying to say that Pep isn't a great coach, or even one of the top 2-3 in the world. He absolutely is. I was just saying that titles aren't the only measure of a great coach especially when considering the opportunity and talent they've had.

Yes, Barça had a wealth of talent, but as has been said multiple times by multiple prior to your post that talent wasn't what it was until he came along.

 

[Evilo]

Also Chelsea spent a lot of money before Mouribho came in. So he did have some players

 

[Stray Wasp]

Also Chelsea spent a lot of money before Mouribho came in. So he did have some players

Inheriting John Terry: Captain, Leader, Iron Cross certainly helped Mourinho's cause.

As did the fact that the groundwork on turning Frank Lampard into a top-class central midfielder had been laid on Ranieri's watch.

You'll likely remember, but obscenely young people reading this may need reminding, that Makelele, Gallas, Duff and Gudjohnsen were also waiting for Mourinho when he walked in the door.

I wonder if, in a way, Mourinho was fortunate to join Chelsea in 2004 rather than 2003, when their initial response to Abramovitch's influx of money was just to buy practically anything that moved without especially having a plan behind it. Mourinho's acquisitions weren't always successful, but his sense of what he needed to add was clearer.

 

[Evilo]

IIRC, Desailly was there too.

 

[S E P H]

Where's Mourinho on the list?

 

[Stray Wasp]

IIRC, Desailly was there too.

Desailly went to Qatar after the 2003-04 season - alas, some of his performances in the biggest games of his final EPL campaign weren't worthy of him.

 

[idiroft]

Inheriting John Terry: Captain, Leader, Iron Cross certainly helped Mourinho's cause.

As did the fact that the groundwork on turning Frank Lampard into a top-class central midfielder had been laid on Ranieri's watch.

You'll likely remember, but obscenely young people reading this may need reminding, that Makelele, Gallas, Duff and Gudjohnsen were also waiting for Mourinho when he walked in the door.

I wonder if, in a way, Mourinho was fortunate to join Chelsea in 2004 rather than 2003, when their initial response to Abramovitch's influx of money was just to buy practically anything that moved without especially having a plan behind it. Mourinho's acquisitions weren't always successful, but his sense of what he needed to add was clearer.

Nonsense, it's easy to say Chelsea had all the money in the world to spend, but he didn't spend a dime on established players (aside from Abramovitch going after Ballack and Shevechenko in the third year). He won the Champions League and UEFA Cup with Porto the two years prior with a team he put together with players in the Portuguese league and a shoestring budget. Guys like Derlei, Maniche, Paulo Ferreira, Nuno Valente were complete unknowns before him. That team became the backbone of the Portuguese national team for years after.

Sure Lampard, Terry and Makelele were there, but would that team go anywhere without the players he picked? Drogba, Carvalho, Essien, Ferreira, Ashley Cole, Robben, Kalou, Obi Mikel...

Again at Inter, strong transfer track record. Flipped Ibra for Etoo, who played a central role in their treble season. Also got Milito, Sneijder, Motta, Lucio.

And what about Madrid? Would they even go on the amazing Champions League tear without his team building years? Ramos and other players have publicly say that Mourinho is the guy responsible for turning them into a real team with an unshakable winning mentality. During his tenure he added to the roster: Modric, Di Maria, Coentrao, Ozil, Khedira, Varane,

Then back at Chelsea he gets Diego Costa, Willian, Fabregas, Pedro, Matic, Zouma.

Everywhere he went where he was allowed to assemble a team to his liking saw great results. From 2002 all the way to 2015 his career was phenomenal. Whatever happened at United is still up for debate, but it's pretty clear he wasn't given the same level of control as in his previous teams.

He should at minimum be in the list of choices presented in this poll. What have guys like Tuchel, Nagelsmann, Sarri, Allegri, Pochettino done to be put above Mourinho? Win a couple of domestic titles? Sarri hasn't done anything outside of italy, ditto for Allegri, Pochettino for all his qualities has won NOTHING. Nagelsmann? Give me a break... being a young coach in a team that fights for a top4 spot in the Bundesliga means absolutely nothing at this point.

 

[Albatros]

Still doesn’t change the fact that Pep(and obviously Messi) was in fact at worst the 2nd biggest catalyst for the greatest club team in history.

The biggest catalyst was the attempt to oust Laporta that summer which opened gates to massive spending.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

The biggest catalyst was the attempt to oust Laporta that summer which opened gates to massive spending.

Yeah, massive spending to buy Messi,Xavi,Iniesta,Valdes,Puyol,Pedro,Pique and Busquets... you know the nucleus of the team.

 

[Albatros]

The club took loans of hundreds of millions of euros to finance the team, already wages alone would not have been possible without it.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Sure bud. Money=trophies.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Nonsense, it's easy to say Chelsea had all the money in the world to spend, but he didn't spend a dime on established players (aside from Abramovitch going after Ballack and Shevechenko in the third year). He won the Champions League and UEFA Cup with Porto the two years prior with a team he put together with players in the Portuguese league and a shoestring budget. Guys like Derlei, Maniche, Paulo Ferreira, Nuno Valente were complete unknowns before him. That team became the backbone of the Portuguese national team for years after.

Sure Lampard, Terry and Makelele were there, but would that team go anywhere without the players he picked? Drogba, Carvalho, Essien, Ferreira, Ashley Cole, Robben, Kalou, Obi Mikel...

In other words, you concede the point that Mourinho inherited some players who proved vital to his success. I missed out Petr Cech from my earlier list, so I'll take this opportunity to add that Chelsea agreed his signing with Rennes in February 2004, again predating Mourinho's appointment.

You praise Mourinho for 'not spending a dime on established players' at Chelsea, yet point out he won the UEFA Cup and Champions League with Porto before he signed. Then you cite Ferreira and Carvalho, signed from Porto, as players he picked to strengthen his Chelsea team. Seems inconsistent to me.

Mind, I'd have said Robben was hardly unknown by 2004, given he'd played in the Champions League with PSV and Euro 2004 with Holland. And I previously referred to Drogba having made a name for himself during Marseille's run to the 2003-4 UEFA Cup final. I suppose you could argue that Essien, twice a Ligue 1 winner with Lyon, and 2005 French Players' Player of the Year, wasn't established prior to arriving at Stamford Bridge. Alas, I'd have to think you Anglocentric and silly if you did.

The whole point about 2003-4 is that it proved indiscriminate throwing of money at the team of itself wasn't enough to win titles. And maybe Ambramovitch needed to see that with his own eyes before he grudgingly admitted it and allowed his coach greater say in signings. I wrote in my earlier post of Mourinho that in 2004, 'his sense of what he needed to add was clearer'. The simple fact is that he inherited his goalkeeper, he inherited his key centre back, he inherited his holding midfielder and his two top scorers in 2004-5 (Gudjohnsen and Lampard). That's nigh on the entire spine of his team. He needed to apply a few finishing touches, rather than reinvent the personnel he fielded. He deserves credit for what he did right in the transfer market at Chelsea, but the limits of what he did merit discussion.

However, although howling 'nonsense' at what doesn't suit you, your mention of Ballack and Shevchenko is a useful reminder that, in the end, even Mourinho, despite having by 2006 achieved a level of success unparalleled in Chelsea's history up to that point, had players he didn't want foisted on him from above - and little over a year later this caused tensions to reach a pass where Chelsea disposed of their best ever manager - only to spend the next six years trying to find another version of him. How, then, is it 'nonsense' to suggest the issue might not have been more pronounced in 2003, had a less garlanded version of Mourinho been faced with an Abramovitch who'd just rolled up, and wanted to throw money at his new toy?

Your list of signings by Mourinho undermines, rather than supports, your position about the importance of his signings for Chelsea, too. 2004-5 was the crucial season for him - without a fast start to his tenure no doubt he'd have been ditched the way so many others have been since. Robben, brilliant as he was, started 14 league games out of 38 that season. Carvalho started 22 games. The inherited Gallas started 28. The only outfield players to start more than 30 league games for Chelsea were Terry, Makelele, Gudjohnsen and Lampard. The latter started all 38 games and finished as top scorer. Mourinho deserves credit for extracting from him that mixture of durability and performance, but the point that he inherited this essential contributor stands. And it was under Ranieri that Lampard first passed the 10 league goals in a season barrier.

On the other hand, where would Chelsea, league winners in 2004-5 and 2005-6, have gone without Kalou and Obi Mikel, both signed in 2006? Who knows?

Mentioning the importance of signing of those two players as though of similar significance to walking through the door and finding Cech, Terry, Makelele and Lampard ready and waiting would my definition of 'nonsense'.

As for Ashley Cole (another 2006 acquisition, by the way) - outstanding as he was, signing him required no insight at all, just the money to satisfy his greed. Chelsea's advantage was that in Gallas they had a player who Wenger was happy to accept in part-exchange. Which again takes us back to Mourinho's inheritance.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Mourinho's not on the list because he never adapted.

He's still trying the same tactics and mind control shit he used 15 years ago.

Sport changes. Adapt or die.

 

[Panteras]

As a United fan, I vote for Klopp. Simeone might be right there behind him for me. Would be interesting how he fares in another environment though.

 

[S E P H]

Mourinho's not on the list because he never adapted.

He's still trying the same tactics and mind control shit he used 15 years ago.

Sport changes. Adapt or die.

It was a jest post.