"Bayern were without Robben, Ribery and Schweinsteiger for the Barca semi. If they were available and Barca were without Messi, Neymar and Iniesta it might have been a rather different tie.
Bayern under Heynkes beat Barca by sitting back and playing on the counter attack. Madrid under Anchelotti beat Bayern in pretty much exactly the same manner. Mourinho has won 2 European cups playing that way. It's a system that is ideally suited to the Champions League. But it is not one Pep, or City under Txiki will ever play."
My point exactly. He was undone by simple counter attacking football. Something you would slate Pellegrini for.
My point isn't that Pellegrini is better than Guardiola, or we should stick with Pellegrini. I believe we should go all out for Guardiola but I also believe those who get frustrated with Pellegrini would be similarly frustrated with Guardiola. There is literally no chance that if we were missing our three best players and were humbled 5-0 you'd give Pellegrini the benefit of the doubt.
There is no arguing Pep's achievements, but what Enrique won in his first season does put it in some context. Bare in mind Enrique is largely a failed manager.
My point to Dunne own goal was, Pep has taken Bayern backwards, he has achieved nothing there that most managers haven't. He has taken the most feared team in Europe and made them worse.
Is that his fault? Partly. The board? Partly. He has taken the very efficient pace and clinical 2013 Bayern and turned them into a worse Barcelona. His system doesn't get the best out of his Bayern players.
I guess the idea was combine German efficiency & physicality with Spanish flair and technique. I don't think I'm alone in not being fully convinced he's been a success at Bayern all things considered. A league and cup double should be the minimum requirement for Bayern to be considered a success. It's now a one team league thanks to FFP.
Things should be different at City, we have spent 3 years acquiring the players suitable for him.
I would consider two titles in three years real success, I think Pellegrini will achieve this, leaving Pep a lot to live up to.
He is a great manager and great fit for us. Has he improved Bayern? Not really and certainly not compared to what he took over. Simple question, are Bayern more feared now or 3 years ago?
Pep's objective at Bayern was to make them the best team in Europe, thus far he's failed. Not in a Moyes type way obviously more of a Mourinho type of way at Real or Chelsea. Had success but not quiet the success expected. I think Mel Machin him Sen would win the current Bundesliga with Bayern.
That is my concern, he may if needs be feel he still has to prove himself at Bayern if as daft as it sounds it's only the league he wins this season.
As I've repeatedly said he is the perfect progression for us, but Pellegrini's faults are abundant too in Guardiola.
You make some good points. Pep and Pellegrini's style are both vulnerable to counter attacking football. They both like to attack and sometimes leave their sides vulnerable.
However, the crucial difference between the two is in their analysis of their opponents and preparation. I know a bit about Pellegrini's and Pep's preparation method's, as do you, and they are very different. Pellegrini focuses almost entirely on our own team and squeezing in players who are in peak fitness and form, his preparation doesn't vary much from game to game. The difference with Pep is that he is absolutely meticulous in his preparation for each game. He obsessively analyses opponents, looks for their strengths and weaknesses, and comes up with a game plan suited to winning a particular game. Read Guillem Ballague's book "A different way of winning" for a bit of insight in to this.
Of course he doesn't always get it right, but what he does do is recognise that different opponents have different strengths and weaknesses, and in order to be successful, you have to adapt to counteract them. I firmly believe Pellegrini does not look at the game like that. He concentrates on our team, plays our way and doesn't worry too much about what the opposition is doing.
The most glaring illustration of my point is the Barca game at home last season. I think from a starting 11 selection, that is perhaps the most incompetent performance I have seen from a City manager since Peter Reid used to pick Adrian Heath instead of Clive Allen. To play a 442 with Fernando and Milner in the middle and Fernandinho on the bench was absolutely absurd. He did not take in to account how Barca dominate the ball in midfield, how their 433 would dominate the ball against our 442. If we had been playing Norwich that night instead of Barca, he would have picked exactly the same starting 11, no doubt in my mind.
Pep on the other hand would have no doubt tried another way. Maybe playing one striker instead of 2, playing 3 central midfielders instead of 2. He'd have come up with some kind of plan. If it was Norwich at home, he'd have no doubt come up with something completely different. Ferguson said it best in his book "If you play 2 in midfield, Pep will play 3, if you play 5 in midfield, he will play 6, he will always set up his team to dominate possession." That's the difference between them. I can forgive a manager if they have analysed the opponent, come up with a plan to win, given it a go, but lost. What I can't forgive is the blissful ignorance of just throwing out the same side regardless of opposition, playing exactly the same way no matter what, and hoping it just all works out for the best.
Pellegrini and Pep may have similar goals - they want to play attractive, attacking, front foot football, but they way in which they go about achieving it couldn't be more different.
