Yer I agree with that. Guardiola also has his team defending from the striker to the defenders, not just having defensive players doing it all. Under Pellegrini we don't press at all. So I too don't see that many similarities in the two coaches philosophies other than it being the 'attractive' game.So why repeatedly bring up the 5-0 loss to Madrid if it's not to illustrate you don't think he's tactically very good? What's the purpose of constantly bringing it up?
I'll deal with these one by one:
I want Pep as manager.
Good, me too.
I think he is a better version of Pellegrini.
He's certainly better. A better 'version' implies they are similar, which I don't agree with whatsoever.
The only similarity I can think of them as managers is that they both like playing attacking football, that's it. Pellegrini is more similar to Kevin Keegan (not an insult, I liked Keegan at City). He concentrates on his team, doesn't prepare differently depending on opposition, he gives his players creative freedom and trusts in them to find a way to win. Most of his managerial career in Europe he has played 2 central strikers. Very dour personality in the media, not very close with his players, more of a company man.
In contrast, Guardiola obsessively analyses opponents, prepares for every game differently to deal with the opposition at hand, he's very strict about team shape and allows much less freedom to his players. Most of his managerial career he has played with 1 or 0 central strikers, very rarely, if ever, with 2. Very charismatic personality in the media, players idolise him, more of a maverick personality who is distant from the executives and closer to the players. (I appreciate he is close to Txiki, but they played in the same team for 5 years so he's a personal friend, he has a reputation of being stand offish with executives).
So when you say they a similar, other than playing attacking football, in what way are they similar?
I think his stuborness will infuriate you and others because he's very similar to Pellegrini. The basis of my point.
The 'similar' aspect I don't agree with whatsoever, as I've written above. The 'stubbornness' aspect I don't agree with either. You've been criticising him for playing a ridiculous 3 on 3 at the back against Barca, a strategy I have never seen before in professional football. He changed it after 10 minutes as it wasn't working. That is the polar opposite of stubborn. It's creative, it's inventive, it's brand new thinking, possibly naive, possibly stupid, but certainly not stubborn.
He started out at Barca in a traditional 433, the season after he moved Messi inside and pretty much invented the "False 9" position and played with no central striker, the season after he experimented with 3, and sometimes 2 at the back. He made adjustments every year to the way Barca played, he wanted to change so they didn't become predictable. He prepares differently for every game to deal with opponents different threats and weaknesses. He's tactically adaptable - the opposite of stubborn.
What is stubborn is Pellegrini sticking to 442 when Bayern were dismantling us at home when they had 6 in midfield. Stubborn was when he continued playing Dzeko and Negredo as a front 2 for 3 months when it was clear to anyone who knows anything about football that they weren't suited to playing together, stubborn is when he refused to bring Fernandinho back in to the side last season when it was clear we needed his legs, stubborn was sticking with Fernando far longer than he should have last season when it was clear he wasn't up to it, stubborn is sticking with Willy Caballero, stubborn is playing the snail like Lescott and Garcia in a high line when they're our only available centre backs, stubborn is 442 at home to Barca with Milner and Fernando in midfield, stubborn is playing Jesus Navas every week despite the fact he couldn't cross the road.
However much you think Pep is stubborn, and whatever reasons you've got for thinking that, I can't see how he could possibly be as stubborn as Pellegrini. It's actually one of the things I'm looking forward to - a manager who is adaptable, who will prepare specifically for opposition, set the team up specifically to suit the players he has available, will change during a game if he has to in order to get a result.
In fact, I'd say Guardiola's lack of stubborness in comparison with Pellegrini is one of the things I'm looking forward to most!
You've not responded to any of my basic points.
Which points specifically?
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he lost 5-0 to anyone?
Probably not because I don't rate him as a manager. Fergurson, Mourinho and Guardiola have all lost games 5-0, but they are proven world class managers, that buys you some excuses when you get it wrong. They've proven they are world class over multiple years. Pellegrini hasn't.
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he played a back 3 man for man?
As I stated earlier, I respected Guardiola's risky, alternative strategy more than Pellegrini's "we'll go down like gentlemen" approach.
So why repeatedly bring up the 5-0 loss to Madrid if it's not to illustrate you don't think he's tactically very good? What's the purpose of constantly bringing it up?
I'll deal with these one by one:
I want Pep as manager.
Good, me too.
I think he is a better version of Pellegrini.
He's certainly better. A better 'version' implies they are similar, which I don't agree with whatsoever.
The only similarity I can think of them as managers is that they both like playing attacking football, that's it. Pellegrini is more similar to Kevin Keegan (not an insult, I liked Keegan at City). He concentrates on his team, doesn't prepare differently depending on opposition, he gives his players creative freedom and trusts in them to find a way to win. Most of his managerial career in Europe he has played 2 central strikers. Very dour personality in the media, not very close with his players, more of a company man.
In contrast, Guardiola obsessively analyses opponents, prepares for every game differently to deal with the opposition at hand, he's very strict about team shape and allows much less freedom to his players. Most of his managerial career he has played with 1 or 0 central strikers, very rarely, if ever, with 2. Very charismatic personality in the media, players idolise him, more of a maverick personality who is distant from the executives and closer to the players. (I appreciate he is close to Txiki, but they played in the same team for 5 years so he's a personal friend, he has a reputation of being stand offish with executives).
So when you say they a similar, other than playing attacking football, in what way are they similar?
I think his stuborness will infuriate you and others because he's very similar to Pellegrini. The basis of my point.
The 'similar' aspect I don't agree with whatsoever, as I've written above. The 'stubbornness' aspect I don't agree with either. You've been criticising him for playing a ridiculous 3 on 3 at the back against Barca, a strategy I have never seen before in professional football. He changed it after 10 minutes as it wasn't working. That is the polar opposite of stubborn. It's creative, it's inventive, it's brand new thinking, possibly naive, possibly stupid, but certainly not stubborn.
He started out at Barca in a traditional 433, the season after he moved Messi inside and pretty much invented the "False 9" position and played with no central striker, the season after he experimented with 3, and sometimes 2 at the back. He made adjustments every year to the way Barca played, he wanted to change so they didn't become predictable. He prepares differently for every game to deal with opponents different threats and weaknesses. He's tactically adaptable - the opposite of stubborn.
What is stubborn is Pellegrini sticking to 442 when Bayern were dismantling us at home when they had 6 in midfield. Stubborn was when he continued playing Dzeko and Negredo as a front 2 for 3 months when it was clear to anyone who knows anything about football that they weren't suited to playing together, stubborn is when he refused to bring Fernandinho back in to the side last season when it was clear we needed his legs, stubborn was sticking with Fernando far longer than he should have last season when it was clear he wasn't up to it, stubborn is sticking with Willy Caballero, stubborn is playing the snail like Lescott and Garcia in a high line when they're our only available centre backs, stubborn is 442 at home to Barca with Milner and Fernando in midfield, stubborn is playing Jesus Navas every week despite the fact he couldn't cross the road.
However much you think Pep is stubborn, and whatever reasons you've got for thinking that, I can't see how he could possibly be as stubborn as Pellegrini. It's actually one of the things I'm looking forward to - a manager who is adaptable, who will prepare specifically for opposition, set the team up specifically to suit the players he has available, will change during a game if he has to in order to get a result.
In fact, I'd say Guardiola's lack of stubborness in comparison with Pellegrini is one of the things I'm looking forward to most!
You've not responded to any of my basic points.
Which points specifically?
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he lost 5-0 to anyone?
Probably not because I don't rate him as a manager. Fergurson, Mourinho and Guardiola have all lost games 5-0, but they are proven world class managers, that buys you some excuses when you get it wrong. They've proven they are world class over multiple years. Pellegrini hasn't.
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he played a back 3 man for man?
As I stated earlier, I respected Guardiola's risky, alternative strategy more than Pellegrini's "we'll go down like gentlemen" approach.
It is Shane tweeting this... But here goes
Reports in Chile say Manchester City manager, Manuel Pellegrini, will retire at the end of the season and be replaced by Pep Guardiola.[/QU
Not too difficult to predict though is it?. I also think it will happen unless Pellegrini has a stormer of a season.
Maybe he actually likes being a football manager? I can't see any reason why he would retire at the end of the seasonEven if he does have a stormer of a season, why not retire.
Go out in a blaze of glory. Surely the way to go ?
Maybe he actually likes being a football manager? I can't see any reason why he would retire at the end of the season
I think this is all pretty fair.Never once said he was tactically awful. I get it, you don't understand my point. Such statements highlight as much.
I'll make it simple.
I want Pep as manager.
I think he is a better version of Pellegrini.
I think his stuborness will infuriate you and others because he's very similar to Pellegrini. The basis of my point.
You've not responded to any of my basic points.
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he lost 5-0 to anyone?
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he played a back 3 man for man?
I know the answer.
Simple really.
As always pal brilliant post.So why repeatedly bring up the 5-0 loss to Madrid if it's not to illustrate you don't think he's tactically very good? What's the purpose of constantly bringing it up?
I'll deal with these one by one:
I want Pep as manager.
Good, me too.
I think he is a better version of Pellegrini.
He's certainly better. A better 'version' implies they are similar, which I don't agree with whatsoever.
The only similarity I can think of them as managers is that they both like playing attacking football, that's it. Pellegrini is more similar to Kevin Keegan (not an insult, I liked Keegan at City). He concentrates on his team, doesn't prepare differently depending on opposition, he gives his players creative freedom and trusts in them to find a way to win. Most of his managerial career in Europe he has played 2 central strikers. Very dour personality in the media, not very close with his players, more of a company man.
In contrast, Guardiola obsessively analyses opponents, prepares for every game differently to deal with the opposition at hand, he's very strict about team shape and allows much less freedom to his players. Most of his managerial career he has played with 1 or 0 central strikers, very rarely, if ever, with 2. Very charismatic personality in the media, players idolise him, more of a maverick personality who is distant from the executives and closer to the players. (I appreciate he is close to Txiki, but they played in the same team for 5 years so he's a personal friend, he has a reputation of being stand offish with executives).
So when you say they a similar, other than playing attacking football, in what way are they similar?
I think his stuborness will infuriate you and others because he's very similar to Pellegrini. The basis of my point.
The 'similar' aspect I don't agree with whatsoever, as I've written above. The 'stubbornness' aspect I don't agree with either. You've been criticising him for playing a ridiculous 3 on 3 at the back against Barca, a strategy I have never seen before in professional football. He changed it after 10 minutes as it wasn't working. That is the polar opposite of stubborn. It's creative, it's inventive, it's brand new thinking, possibly naive, possibly stupid, but certainly not stubborn.
He started out at Barca in a traditional 433, the season after he moved Messi inside and pretty much invented the "False 9" position and played with no central striker, the season after he experimented with 3, and sometimes 2 at the back. He made adjustments every year to the way Barca played, he wanted to change so they didn't become predictable. He prepares differently for every game to deal with opponents different threats and weaknesses. He's tactically adaptable - the opposite of stubborn.
What is stubborn is Pellegrini sticking to 442 when Bayern were dismantling us at home when they had 6 in midfield. Stubborn was when he continued playing Dzeko and Negredo as a front 2 for 3 months when it was clear to anyone who knows anything about football that they weren't suited to playing together, stubborn is when he refused to bring Fernandinho back in to the side last season when it was clear we needed his legs, stubborn was sticking with Fernando far longer than he should have last season when it was clear he wasn't up to it, stubborn is sticking with Willy Caballero, stubborn is playing the snail like Lescott and Garcia in a high line when they're our only available centre backs, stubborn is 442 at home to Barca with Milner and Fernando in midfield, stubborn is playing Jesus Navas every week despite the fact he couldn't cross the road.
However much you think Pep is stubborn, and whatever reasons you've got for thinking that, I can't see how he could possibly be as stubborn as Pellegrini. It's actually one of the things I'm looking forward to - a manager who is adaptable, who will prepare specifically for opposition, set the team up specifically to suit the players he has available, will change during a game if he has to in order to get a result.
In fact, I'd say Guardiola's lack of stubborness in comparison with Pellegrini is one of the things I'm looking forward to most!
You've not responded to any of my basic points.
Which points specifically?
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he lost 5-0 to anyone?
Probably not because I don't rate him as a manager. Fergurson, Mourinho and Guardiola have all lost games 5-0, but they are proven world class managers, that buys you some excuses when you get it wrong. They've proven they are world class over multiple years. Pellegrini hasn't.
Would you excuse Pellegrini if he played a back 3 man for man?
As I stated earlier, I respected Guardiola's risky, alternative strategy more than Pellegrini's "we'll go down like gentlemen" approach.