pep guardiola

[supercrystal7]

He builds his team up to reach their peak in the second season, then it falls apart after that. If the league he is in is weak enough, then he wins the title in the first year as well as part of the building process, but he never manages to keep his team at the top of their game after that second season. He either bails or fails after that.

I don't think this is a fair comment at all. At Porto he built a great team and a lot of the players that left went on to have very good careers and were in their prime. Carvalho and Ferreira at Chelsea whilst Deco went to Barca. Maniche would soon leave too. Understandably he left for a bigger job, but who knows if he could rebuild.

At Chelsea the team he built only really came to an end after 2012. They continued to have great success and won everything in football. The point can be brought up he left, but this was more Abramovic's fault than Mourinho's. If I remember straight it was Pepe, that Mourinho wanted. Chelsea lacked defensive cover and needed Pepe. Abramovic then went and wasted all the budget on Shevchenko, who like Torres was past it. They fell out and he left. At the same time by luck more than any judgement (signing Ronaldo was a fluke) United had just built the strongest team the Premiership and arguably England as a whole had seen led by the arguably the best player to ever play in this country.

Then at Inter he was remit was not to build a team, but to deliver the CL. The Inter team had won everything and Moratti wanted just one thing. Understandably after winning everything in the game (but failing at the world cup) the players lacked motivation and the team had to be rebuilt.

At Madrid he built another super team which could have lasted for many years. Here is where he deserves the blame, because the problems with the players led to the team underachieving and him ultimately being sacked.

Chelsea is supposed to be the club of his heart and we will see how he can do in the long term. He can certainly build great teams better than any other manager. I believe he can last and see those teams through, but we will see.


As for Guardiola I will judge him after how Bayern do in the CL. If he fails to win the CL then he has failed at Bayern. Guardiola has inherited for me 2/3 great teams in recent times (Barca/Bayern/Miland 90s). At Barca he did freshen and motivate the players, but the core of the squad were still there. Most importantly Rjikaard had already bled Iniesta/Messi through the difficult development stage; resting them and not rushing them back. At Bayern he has taken over the strongest team in history for me and overseen one of their most humiliating results. Without doubt Mourinho is the better manager, but Guardiola is still young and we will see what he has learnt with Bayern.

At the moment if I was a City fan I would want Ancelotti (winning leagues is a problem, but the CL is his trophy) and Simeone before Guardiola.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Our men at the top know him well enough, and that has a very strong bearing on where he stands when his Bayern contract expires. My only worry is that his two clubs are/were in already dominant positions when he landed those jobs, whereas if he came to us then he would likely need to do a re-building job to match, let alone dominate, at least four other clubs in our own league, and the pressures will be strong. We may need to recruit another name before then if Pellegrini lets things slip. Who, I don't know, but Simeone is the latest to be linked and his current players know how to scrap for their results, and perhaps he could be the next manager until Pep finally decides his time at Bayern is over.

I'm by no means a frequent La Liga watcher but isn't Simeone tactically more of a 'build from the back' kind of manager? I'd be surprised if the powers that be appointed a defensively minded manager when Pellegrini was apparently appointed in order to get us playing a more attacking style of football.

That's a fair point and the whole concept [according to Txiki] is to build a 4-3-3 way of playing at all levels of the club, and if we get to achieve that then it will be easier to work our most promising kids through the system and into the first team and hopefully make the playing side of City self-sufficient without ever thinking of FFP again. But as we all know, the really great teams are built from the back first and then through the midfield before the icing on the cake up front. Their are plenty of Mourinho fans on these threads, and although he isn't my cup of tea, I have to accept that even with the fortune that his club has had to spend ever since the oligarch bought his club, the overwhelming success that Mourinho has brought has come from a willingness to dig in and battle for everything, and if it brings in a dozen consecutive dour 1-0 victories rather than a couple of 5-0 wins and a couple of defeats in that spell, Mourinho will always go for the wins first. Maybe Simeone would be of that same mindset.

 

[MeatHunterrr]

Guardiola is the best fit for City's structure (whole Club plays the same way with attacking brand of football, youth teams and first team) and can work without total control over everything etc. Simeone wouldn't fit that bill.

So I hope we get Guardiola in the summer of 2016, because I think he will see his contract out at Bayern and Pellegrini will do the same here.

 

[Puppet Master Silva]

Will he bring a Barcoh style of plehy?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Our men at the top know him well enough, and that has a very strong bearing on where he stands when his Bayern contract expires. My only worry is that his two clubs are/were in already dominant positions when he landed those jobs, whereas if he came to us then he would likely need to do a re-building job to match, let alone dominate, at least four other clubs in our own league, and the pressures will be strong. We may need to recruit another name before then if Pellegrini lets things slip. Who, I don't know, but Simeone is the latest to be linked and his current players know how to scrap for their results, and perhaps he could be the next manager until Pep finally decides his time at Bayern is over.

I'm by no means a frequent La Liga watcher but isn't Simeone tactically more of a 'build from the back' kind of manager? I'd be surprised if the powers that be appointed a defensively minded manager when Pellegrini was apparently appointed in order to get us playing a more attacking style of football.

That's a fair point and the whole concept [according to Txiki] is to build a 4-3-3 way of playing at all levels of the club, and if we get to achieve that then it will be easier to work our most promising kids through the system and into the first team and hopefully make the playing side of City self-sufficient without ever thinking of FFP again. But as we all know, the really great teams are built from the back first and then through the midfield before the icing on the cake up front. Their are plenty of Mourinho fans on these threads, and although he isn't my cup of tea, I have to accept that even with the fortune that his club has had to spend ever since the oligarch bought his club, the overwhelming success that Mourinho has brought has come from a willingness to dig in and battle for everything, and if it brings in a dozen consecutive dour 1-0 victories rather than a couple of 5-0 wins and a couple of defeats in that spell, Mourinho will always go for the wins first. Maybe Simeone would be of that same mindset.

Txiki's 'all levels 4-3-3' is one of the weirdest and most enduring myths of modern day Manchester City. Some junior coach speculated about two years ago and it got twisted into a little peice of tabloid gossip. But City fans still quote it as fact.

I think the fact that over that two years I've seen city teams in pretty much every formation but that one speaks volumes.

A 'club formation' would be lunacy.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I'm by no means a frequent La Liga watcher but isn't Simeone tactically more of a 'build from the back' kind of manager? I'd be surprised if the powers that be appointed a defensively minded manager when Pellegrini was apparently appointed in order to get us playing a more attacking style of football.

That's a fair point and the whole concept [according to Txiki] is to build a 4-3-3 way of playing at all levels of the club, and if we get to achieve that then it will be easier to work our most promising kids through the system and into the first team and hopefully make the playing side of City self-sufficient without ever thinking of FFP again. But as we all know, the really great teams are built from the back first and then through the midfield before the icing on the cake up front. Their are plenty of Mourinho fans on these threads, and although he isn't my cup of tea, I have to accept that even with the fortune that his club has had to spend ever since the oligarch bought his club, the overwhelming success that Mourinho has brought has come from a willingness to dig in and battle for everything, and if it brings in a dozen consecutive dour 1-0 victories rather than a couple of 5-0 wins and a couple of defeats in that spell, Mourinho will always go for the wins first. Maybe Simeone would be of that same mindset.

Txiki's 'all levels 4-3-3' is one of the weirdest and most enduring myths of modern day Manchester City. Some junior coach speculated about two years ago and it got twisted into a little peice of tabloid gossip. But City fans still quote it as fact.

I think the fact that over that two years I've seen city teams in pretty much every formation but that one speaks volumes.

A 'club formation' would be lunacy.

I think this is the quote:

"We want to play good football, beautiful football in the sense of ball possession and managing the concepts of football which can give you a good show. That means in the youth academy we haven't changed anything. The basic formation is 4-3-3 because that is the one which allows you to teach the kids how to play this kind of football.

When it goes to the first team, the manager can make as many changes as he wants but normally what shouldn't happen is that he will make radical changes, will start to develop a kind of football involving lots of long balls etc. We are not telling the manager how to do his job, we are just providing for the manager of the first team to fill the young ranks with technically skilled players who are talented enough to play this kind of football. He can do that as he wants."

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Thanks mate. He is clear there that the manager has free hand

 

[Wio Gumflapdinand]

Will he bring a Barcoh style of plehy?

Why would he want to play like Newcastle?

 

[Jack74]

At least he would bring a Barca style of play

Don't care.

Give it Giggsy till the end of the season

 

[BayernMan]

"Manchester City? I hope to stay at Bayern Munich for a long time," Guardiola said at a press conference.

"I have a contract with this wonderful club and aim to fulfil that. I have not received any offers.

"We will see what happens after next year. I am very happy at Bayern."

 

[Neville Kneville]

"Manchester City? I hope to stay at Bayern Munich for a long time," Guardiola said at a press conference.

"I have a contract with this wonderful club and aim to fulfil that. I have not received any offers.

"We will see what happens after next year. I am very happy at Bayern."

That means nothing at all, but I'll be happy enough if he signs a new deal there. Just don't want him going to a rival here.

Doesn't rule out City there though & would be a bit ridiculous if he said ' I think I'll fuck off after next season '.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

I'm by no means a frequent La Liga watcher but isn't Simeone tactically more of a 'build from the back' kind of manager? I'd be surprised if the powers that be appointed a defensively minded manager when Pellegrini was apparently appointed in order to get us playing a more attacking style of football.

That's a fair point and the whole concept [according to Txiki] is to build a 4-3-3 way of playing at all levels of the club, and if we get to achieve that then it will be easier to work our most promising kids through the system and into the first team and hopefully make the playing side of City self-sufficient without ever thinking of FFP again. But as we all know, the really great teams are built from the back first and then through the midfield before the icing on the cake up front. Their are plenty of Mourinho fans on these threads, and although he isn't my cup of tea, I have to accept that even with the fortune that his club has had to spend ever since the oligarch bought his club, the overwhelming success that Mourinho has brought has come from a willingness to dig in and battle for everything, and if it brings in a dozen consecutive dour 1-0 victories rather than a couple of 5-0 wins and a couple of defeats in that spell, Mourinho will always go for the wins first. Maybe Simeone would be of that same mindset.

Txiki's 'all levels 4-3-3' is one of the weirdest and most enduring myths of modern day Manchester City. Some junior coach speculated about two years ago and it got twisted into a little peice of tabloid gossip. But City fans still quote it as fact.

I think the fact that over that two years I've seen city teams in pretty much every formation but that one speaks volumes.

A 'club formation' would be lunacy.

Nope thats the way the Dutch play .....even in school teams play in the same formation as the national team and thats what Barca did in the past

 

[Sergi0 Na5r1]

"Manchester City? I hope to stay at Bayern Munich for a long time," Guardiola said at a press conference.

"I have a contract with this wonderful club and aim to fulfil that. I have not received any offers.

"We will see what happens after next year. I am very happy at Bayern."

That means nothing at all, but I'll be happy enough if he signs a new deal there. Just don't want him going to a rival here.

Doesn't rule out City there though & would be a bit ridiculous if he said ' I think I'll fuck off after next season '.

Funny if he said "yes I'm finished here. I'm on my way to the airport now"

 

[Damocles]

That's a fair point and the whole concept [according to Txiki] is to build a 4-3-3 way of playing at all levels of the club, and if we get to achieve that then it will be easier to work our most promising kids through the system and into the first team and hopefully make the playing side of City self-sufficient without ever thinking of FFP again. But as we all know, the really great teams are built from the back first and then through the midfield before the icing on the cake up front. Their are plenty of Mourinho fans on these threads, and although he isn't my cup of tea, I have to accept that even with the fortune that his club has had to spend ever since the oligarch bought his club, the overwhelming success that Mourinho has brought has come from a willingness to dig in and battle for everything, and if it brings in a dozen consecutive dour 1-0 victories rather than a couple of 5-0 wins and a couple of defeats in that spell, Mourinho will always go for the wins first. Maybe Simeone would be of that same mindset.

Txiki's 'all levels 4-3-3' is one of the weirdest and most enduring myths of modern day Manchester City. Some junior coach speculated about two years ago and it got twisted into a little peice of tabloid gossip. But City fans still quote it as fact.

I think the fact that over that two years I've seen city teams in pretty much every formation but that one speaks volumes.

A 'club formation' would be lunacy.

Nope thats the way the Dutch play .....even in school teams play in the same formation as the national team and thats what Barca did in the past

This isn't true at all, for the record.

Dave is right on all counts regarding the idea of a club formation as being ridiculous. And Barca didn't have one either as far as I'm aware.

 

[blueparrot]

I'm by no means a frequent La Liga watcher but isn't Simeone tactically more of a 'build from the back' kind of manager? I'd be surprised if the powers that be appointed a defensively minded manager when Pellegrini was apparently appointed in order to get us playing a more attacking style of football.

That's a fair point and the whole concept [according to Txiki] is to build a 4-3-3 way of playing at all levels of the club, and if we get to achieve that then it will be easier to work our most promising kids through the system and into the first team and hopefully make the playing side of City self-sufficient without ever thinking of FFP again. But as we all know, the really great teams are built from the back first and then through the midfield before the icing on the cake up front. Their are plenty of Mourinho fans on these threads, and although he isn't my cup of tea, I have to accept that even with the fortune that his club has had to spend ever since the oligarch bought his club, the overwhelming success that Mourinho has brought has come from a willingness to dig in and battle for everything, and if it brings in a dozen consecutive dour 1-0 victories rather than a couple of 5-0 wins and a couple of defeats in that spell, Mourinho will always go for the wins first. Maybe Simeone would be of that same mindset.

Txiki's 'all levels 4-3-3' is one of the weirdest and most enduring myths of modern day Manchester City. Some junior coach speculated about two years ago and it got twisted into a little peice of tabloid gossip. But City fans still quote it as fact.

I think the fact that over that two years I've seen city teams in pretty much every formation but that one speaks volumes.

A 'club formation' would be lunacy.

I thought I'd seen it said somewhere that all the junior teams would play 433 as its's the best formation to learn the game and make the players adaptable for whatever formation the first team played. But the manager would choose the first team formation.

 

[Damocles]

I thought I'd seen it said somewhere that all the junior teams would play 433 as its's the best formation to learn the game and make the players adaptable for whatever formation the first team played. But the manager would choose the first team formation.

It's an interesting discussion actually.

I've long said that formations don't even exist - they are a stupid way of describing what is essentially a fluid game and we need a better way to describe the general area that players operate in. One of my problems with modern football and the increasing use of science, is that it hasn't really adopted the scientific idea of having to label everything specifically and accurately. People interested in physics will know what I mean when I say this, but one of the issues in any complex situation with many variables is the ability to label variables accurately enough so that the mental model that they create in other people is somewhat true to life. Without that, we can't even communicate in the same language. My idea of what a 4-4-2 is is not the same as yours or Dave's or anybody else's; in fact when I say a 4-4-2 all I really mean is a team that plays with wingers and has a striker that drops deeper. You could call that a 4-2-3-1 and it would be perfectly accurate. This in my mind has been the biggest failing of the football media over the years, and I include things like Football Manager and FIFA too, they have created poor mental models which don't accurately reflect the game and nobody ever challenges them to be specific. Football has its own marketing-speak that everybody uses despite not really knowing that anything in it means.

With that disclaimer out of the way, our youth teams tend to switch through several different formations at different points of the game. Take Ambrose for example, in a single game he can play on the right, left or up top in a 3 man attack but in the next match he can be the lone striker with an attacking midfielder behind him, and he'll rotate into that role too. Our players at youth level tend to play various formations and in various positions as a way of keeping them moving and improving.

You have to remember too that many of our youth teams won't play a 4-3-3 formation because they aren't playing 11 a side games yet. The ones who do play 11 a side are the ones who use constantly fluid formations with constantly fluid positions.

 

[blueparrot]

I thought I'd seen it said somewhere that all the junior teams would play 433 as its's the best formation to learn the game and make the players adaptable for whatever formation the first team played. But the manager would choose the first team formation.

It's an interesting discussion actually.

I've long said that formations don't even exist - they are a stupid way of describing what is essentially a fluid game and we need a better way to describe the general area that players operate in. One of my problems with modern football and the increasing use of science, is that it hasn't really adopted the scientific idea of having to label everything specifically and accurately. People interested in physics will know what I mean when I say this, but one of the issues in any complex situation with many variables is the ability to label variables accurately enough so that the mental model that they create in other people is somewhat true to life. Without that, we can't even communicate in the same language. My idea of what a 4-4-2 is is not the same as yours or Dave's or anybody else's; in fact when I say a 4-4-2 all I really mean is a team that plays with wingers and has a striker that drops deeper. You could call that a 4-2-3-1 and it would be perfectly accurate. This in my mind has been the biggest failing of the football media over the years, and I include things like Football Manager and FIFA too, they have created poor mental models which don't accurately reflect the game and nobody ever challenges them to be specific. Football has its own marketing-speak that everybody uses despite not really knowing that anything in it means.

With that disclaimer out of the way, our youth teams tend to switch through several different formations at different points of the game. Take Ambrose for example, in a single game he can play on the right, left or up top in a 3 man attack but in the next match he can be the lone striker with an attacking midfielder behind him, and he'll rotate into that role too. Our players at youth level tend to play various formations and in various positions as a way of keeping them moving and improving.

You have to remember too that many of our youth teams won't play a 4-3-3 formation because they aren't playing 11 a side games yet. The ones who do play 11 a side are the ones who use constantly fluid formations with constantly fluid positions.

It's certainly true that teams that have players that can interchange and have a fluid formation, total football if you like, will be the most successful and best to watch. To play like that though the whole team has to buy into it and the academy players changing positions is a big part of that education.
Our cuurent first team though is a long way from that though with quite a few having set rigid positions Dzeko just for one obvious example, it's difficult to see how the first team can change to that fluid system without changing quite a few of the squad' it would take more than one window and do people have the patience to wait for the changes to take hold, including the manager.

 

[BayernMan]

Guardiola is the best fit for City's structure (whole Club plays the same way with attacking brand of football, youth teams and first team) and can work without total control over everything etc. Simeone wouldn't fit that bill.

So I hope we get Guardiola in the summer of 2016, because I think he will see his contract out at Bayern and Pellegrini will do the same here.

Well you could always get him in another "four, five, or six years"

http://www.football-espana.net/48941/pep-rules-out-barca-return

 

[aguero93:20]

Guardiola is the best fit for City's structure (whole Club plays the same way with attacking brand of football, youth teams and first team) and can work without total control over everything etc. Simeone wouldn't fit that bill.

So I hope we get Guardiola in the summer of 2016, because I think he will see his contract out at Bayern and Pellegrini will do the same here.

Well you could always get him in another "four, five, or six years"

http://www.football-espana.net/48941/pep-rules-out-barca-return

Happy days, No Guardiola.

 

[Txiki Txiki Bang Bang]

Guardiola is the best fit for City's structure (whole Club plays the same way with attacking brand of football, youth teams and first team) and can work without total control over everything etc. Simeone wouldn't fit that bill.

So I hope we get Guardiola in the summer of 2016, because I think he will see his contract out at Bayern and Pellegrini will do the same here.

Well you could always get him in another "four, five, or six years"

http://www.football-espana.net/48941/pep-rules-out-barca-return

Guardiola would be gone by the end of the season. There's a lot of power struggle at Bayern Munich. The old germans want to force their ideology on Pep and that wouldn't work. I have this strange feeling that some of the power brokers at Bayern want Pep to fail, kind of like when Valdano and the rest of them at RM wanted Maureen to fail. Retaining the BuLi title wouldn't be enough to save Pep's job.