To be fair pep just happened to be the coach when Messi came of age. That's lucky. Had rijkard been coach when he did, he'd now probably be the Messiah not Pep.
Saying that Pep is definitely a good manager. A very good one.
This will make no sense whatsoever (except to me)
I didn't want him at Chelsea, but I didn't want a rival to get him either.
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
Barca can put anyone in charge of that squad and if you're poor then you'll be like Luis Enrique or if you're remotely decent like Pep then you'll do ok!
----------------------
Except it was Guardiola that started it all. Took a team that finished 3rd and became the first Spanish side in history to win the treble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Ranieri did with leicester was better for obvious reasons so is he better?
Also the Barca team he took over wasn't bad by any means... he just improved them and to be fair he had the help of one the greatest players the world has ever seen.
It's like Eric said, he's a very good manager... but he's not done a Jose with Porto or Inter and IMO he didn't take Bayern further as I think they actually played better before Pep took over
Why the feck did he play 50 mil for Stones
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Nah. Not overrated at all. That Barcelona team between 09-12 didn't play like they did by accident. Whether the pieces were already in place is irrelevant, you see a direct correlation between that team starting and finishing (or moving onto another philosophy) with Guardiola's managerial reign there. Similar story with Bayern Munich as well, though not to such an extravagant level
Whether or not that particular style of football is too everyone's personal taste is also irrelevant, the discipline of his players to carry out his ideals even in times of minor turbulence makes him someone you know is a serious player. Managed the two biggest clubs in the world at the time of appointment, and never lost the backing of his players. You can produce a FAR greater argument at this point that Mourinho is overrated, because he's now lost two dressing rooms in his managerial career - one quite spectacularly.
You can argue he's inflexible absolutely, but then again he's never had any reason to change.
Let's get this right. Firstly City should have won today. Nothing Pep can do about inexcusable misses from KDB and Aguero along with Aguero's behaviour at the end.
Secondly, City may still go on to have a good season and win things. I doubt one will be the PL, but I'd be surprised if anyone other than Liverpool or Chelsea wins it this season with their advantage over the others.
Let's get this right. Firstly City should have won today
______
Nonsense. They didn't win. That's the point. We've been doing this to Arsenal for years. Away at their patch. They hog the ball, miss about a billion chances whilst we score a few up at their end. They dominate all the stats bar the goals column. Same thing happened today away at City. City only scored once and that was an own goal by us. If they didn't bring their shooting boots then that's their fault. We brought ours and yes we had some luck but in big away games that what you need. We also had our finishing pretty much spot on. You don't deserve to win games on missed chances.
Let's get this right.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a Spurs fan what would you know about getting things right?
What if Hazard had decided to hit an empty net instead of pass? What if my granny had balls - she'd be my grandad!
So - firstly Man City scored an only goal from an abysmal attempt at a clearance from Cahill; Chelsea hit the back of the net with excellent goals - three times!
End of the day Pep has had an easy ride in his first two managerial positions - we'll find out what his capabilities are over the next few years!
Chelsea hit the back of the net with excellent goals - three times!
---------
And that's all she wrote
comment by Mr Chelsea. (U3579)
posted 9 minutes ago
Let's get this right. Firstly City should have won today
______
Nonsense. They didn't win. That's the point. We've been doing this to Arsenal for years. Away at their patch. They hog the ball, miss about a billion chances whilst we score a few up at their end. They dominate all the stats bar the goals column. Same thing happened today away at City. City only scored once and that was an own goal by us. If they didn't bring their shooting boots then that's their fault. We brought ours and yes we had some luck but in big away games that what you need. We also had our finishing pretty much spot on. You don't deserve to win games on missed chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You act as though I said City 'deserved' to win, which I didn't because I believe Chelsea deserved the win. It's different from thinking they 'should' have won, and they really should have because they had the better chances until you sealed it at the end. If KDB puts away that chance then City are 2-0 up and the game is as good as over.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 15 minutes ago
Let's get this right.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a Spurs fan what would you know about getting things right?
What if Hazard had decided to hit an empty net instead of pass? What if my granny had balls - she'd be my grandad!
So - firstly Man City scored an only goal from an abysmal attempt at a clearance from Cahill; Chelsea hit the back of the net with excellent goals - three times!
End of the day Pep has had an easy ride in his first two managerial positions - we'll find out what his capabilities are over the next few years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Chelsea fan cluelessly getting mixed up. "Should have won" and "deserved to win" mean different things. I said "should have" because they had the better chances to finish the game early on. Has nothing to do with Chelsea deserving their victory. Understand?
Play with words all you want Spurtle!
We know what you were implying!
Not true at all. I'm one of the few who will actually defend a team for deserving a victory even when they are outplayed and end up with less chances than their opponents. If you make the most of your chances while the opponents don't then you deserve to win. However, it's the opponents that should be winning because they were the ones creating the most chances and dominating.
This whole "well if KDB had scored" stuff is getting tiring. What if Hazard had scored what was basically an open net which was at 0-0 if I remember correctly? It would be 4-1. What if Cahill used his left foot like a normal person? Could've been 4-0. Point is these things didn't happen and so are pretty much meaningless.
City could have easily won the game. They created a ton of chances but didn't put them away. We created probably about 5 good chances and put three of them away.
Talking about who should have or who deserved to win is such a waste of time and is far too subjective.
There isn't a Chelsea fan in the world who wouldn't have taken this scenario so talking about anything other than who put the ball in the net and got the three points becomes kind of irrelevant.
comment by The Devil's Advocate's Advocate - I ... (U6522)
posted 8 hours, 22 minutes ago
Nah. Not overrated at all. That Barcelona team between 09-12 didn't play like they did by accident. Whether the pieces were already in place is irrelevant, you see a direct correlation between that team starting and finishing (or moving onto another philosophy) with Guardiola's managerial reign there. Similar story with Bayern Munich as well, though not to such an extravagant level
Whether or not that particular style of football is too everyone's personal taste is also irrelevant, the discipline of his players to carry out his ideals even in times of minor turbulence makes him someone you know is a serious player. Managed the two biggest clubs in the world at the time of appointment, and never lost the backing of his players. You can produce a FAR greater argument at this point that Mourinho is overrated, because he's now lost two dressing rooms in his managerial career - one quite spectacularly.
You can argue he's inflexible absolutely, but then again he's never had any reason to change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"whether the peices were in place is irrelavant"....
Try dropping West Ham into that league with Pep in charge....then tell me that
Pep basically had a work of art that needing touching up....
comment by Juan Eden Zola (U6000)
posted 5 hours, 45 minutes ago
City could have easily won the game. They created a ton of chances but didn't put them away. We created probably about 5 good chances and put three of them away.
Talking about who should have or who deserved to win is such a waste of time and is far too subjective.
There isn't a Chelsea fan in the world who wouldn't have taken this scenario so talking about anything other than who put the ball in the net and got the three points becomes kind of irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point wasn't even originally about Chelsea, it was about Guardiola whom the article is supposed to be about, and in the sense that somebody is calling him out for being overrated after this game, it is relevant to mention how on the balance of play City were the better team for the majority, creating the best chances to put the game out of sight because there's nothing Guardiola can do about usually reliable players not finishing chances off, inc. the miss of the season from KDB.
Don't know why Chelsea fans took it upon themselves to get uppity. If they watched the game they should agree anyway that they should have lost (not deserved to lose) the game based on chances City had.
Slurtle thought we were mates yet you come on here dissing Chelsea left right and centre
Mr C, you'll always be my number 1 caaaant, you know that.
I kind of get what Spurtle is saying but 'should have lost' is a bit far.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Kunta Kinte Kante Conte (U1641)
posted 4 minutes ago
I kind of get what Spurtle is saying but 'should have lost' is a bit far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, then they could easily have lost. Is that better?
KDB puts that chance away that he would 99 times out of 100, then it ends up being 2-0, City probably go on to win comfortably, they go top, and Guardiola gets looked on as good a manager as he always has.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Pep over rated
Page 2 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 3/12/16
To be fair pep just happened to be the coach when Messi came of age. That's lucky. Had rijkard been coach when he did, he'd now probably be the Messiah not Pep.
Saying that Pep is definitely a good manager. A very good one.
posted on 3/12/16
This will make no sense whatsoever (except to me)
I didn't want him at Chelsea, but I didn't want a rival to get him either.
posted on 3/12/16
comment by The Welsh Xavi (U15412)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
Barca can put anyone in charge of that squad and if you're poor then you'll be like Luis Enrique or if you're remotely decent like Pep then you'll do ok!
----------------------
Except it was Guardiola that started it all. Took a team that finished 3rd and became the first Spanish side in history to win the treble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Ranieri did with leicester was better for obvious reasons so is he better?
Also the Barca team he took over wasn't bad by any means... he just improved them and to be fair he had the help of one the greatest players the world has ever seen.
It's like Eric said, he's a very good manager... but he's not done a Jose with Porto or Inter and IMO he didn't take Bayern further as I think they actually played better before Pep took over
posted on 3/12/16
Why the feck did he play 50 mil for Stones
posted on 3/12/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/16
Nah. Not overrated at all. That Barcelona team between 09-12 didn't play like they did by accident. Whether the pieces were already in place is irrelevant, you see a direct correlation between that team starting and finishing (or moving onto another philosophy) with Guardiola's managerial reign there. Similar story with Bayern Munich as well, though not to such an extravagant level
Whether or not that particular style of football is too everyone's personal taste is also irrelevant, the discipline of his players to carry out his ideals even in times of minor turbulence makes him someone you know is a serious player. Managed the two biggest clubs in the world at the time of appointment, and never lost the backing of his players. You can produce a FAR greater argument at this point that Mourinho is overrated, because he's now lost two dressing rooms in his managerial career - one quite spectacularly.
You can argue he's inflexible absolutely, but then again he's never had any reason to change.
posted on 4/12/16
Let's get this right. Firstly City should have won today. Nothing Pep can do about inexcusable misses from KDB and Aguero along with Aguero's behaviour at the end.
Secondly, City may still go on to have a good season and win things. I doubt one will be the PL, but I'd be surprised if anyone other than Liverpool or Chelsea wins it this season with their advantage over the others.
posted on 4/12/16
Let's get this right. Firstly City should have won today
______
Nonsense. They didn't win. That's the point. We've been doing this to Arsenal for years. Away at their patch. They hog the ball, miss about a billion chances whilst we score a few up at their end. They dominate all the stats bar the goals column. Same thing happened today away at City. City only scored once and that was an own goal by us. If they didn't bring their shooting boots then that's their fault. We brought ours and yes we had some luck but in big away games that what you need. We also had our finishing pretty much spot on. You don't deserve to win games on missed chances.
posted on 4/12/16
Let's get this right.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a Spurs fan what would you know about getting things right?
What if Hazard had decided to hit an empty net instead of pass? What if my granny had balls - she'd be my grandad!
So - firstly Man City scored an only goal from an abysmal attempt at a clearance from Cahill; Chelsea hit the back of the net with excellent goals - three times!
End of the day Pep has had an easy ride in his first two managerial positions - we'll find out what his capabilities are over the next few years!
posted on 4/12/16
Chelsea hit the back of the net with excellent goals - three times!
---------
And that's all she wrote
posted on 4/12/16
comment by Mr Chelsea. (U3579)
posted 9 minutes ago
Let's get this right. Firstly City should have won today
______
Nonsense. They didn't win. That's the point. We've been doing this to Arsenal for years. Away at their patch. They hog the ball, miss about a billion chances whilst we score a few up at their end. They dominate all the stats bar the goals column. Same thing happened today away at City. City only scored once and that was an own goal by us. If they didn't bring their shooting boots then that's their fault. We brought ours and yes we had some luck but in big away games that what you need. We also had our finishing pretty much spot on. You don't deserve to win games on missed chances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You act as though I said City 'deserved' to win, which I didn't because I believe Chelsea deserved the win. It's different from thinking they 'should' have won, and they really should have because they had the better chances until you sealed it at the end. If KDB puts away that chance then City are 2-0 up and the game is as good as over.
posted on 4/12/16
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 15 minutes ago
Let's get this right.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a Spurs fan what would you know about getting things right?
What if Hazard had decided to hit an empty net instead of pass? What if my granny had balls - she'd be my grandad!
So - firstly Man City scored an only goal from an abysmal attempt at a clearance from Cahill; Chelsea hit the back of the net with excellent goals - three times!
End of the day Pep has had an easy ride in his first two managerial positions - we'll find out what his capabilities are over the next few years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Chelsea fan cluelessly getting mixed up. "Should have won" and "deserved to win" mean different things. I said "should have" because they had the better chances to finish the game early on. Has nothing to do with Chelsea deserving their victory. Understand?
posted on 4/12/16
Play with words all you want Spurtle!
We know what you were implying!
posted on 4/12/16
Not true at all. I'm one of the few who will actually defend a team for deserving a victory even when they are outplayed and end up with less chances than their opponents. If you make the most of your chances while the opponents don't then you deserve to win. However, it's the opponents that should be winning because they were the ones creating the most chances and dominating.
posted on 4/12/16
This whole "well if KDB had scored" stuff is getting tiring. What if Hazard had scored what was basically an open net which was at 0-0 if I remember correctly? It would be 4-1. What if Cahill used his left foot like a normal person? Could've been 4-0. Point is these things didn't happen and so are pretty much meaningless.
posted on 4/12/16
City could have easily won the game. They created a ton of chances but didn't put them away. We created probably about 5 good chances and put three of them away.
Talking about who should have or who deserved to win is such a waste of time and is far too subjective.
There isn't a Chelsea fan in the world who wouldn't have taken this scenario so talking about anything other than who put the ball in the net and got the three points becomes kind of irrelevant.
posted on 4/12/16
comment by The Devil's Advocate's Advocate - I ... (U6522)
posted 8 hours, 22 minutes ago
Nah. Not overrated at all. That Barcelona team between 09-12 didn't play like they did by accident. Whether the pieces were already in place is irrelevant, you see a direct correlation between that team starting and finishing (or moving onto another philosophy) with Guardiola's managerial reign there. Similar story with Bayern Munich as well, though not to such an extravagant level
Whether or not that particular style of football is too everyone's personal taste is also irrelevant, the discipline of his players to carry out his ideals even in times of minor turbulence makes him someone you know is a serious player. Managed the two biggest clubs in the world at the time of appointment, and never lost the backing of his players. You can produce a FAR greater argument at this point that Mourinho is overrated, because he's now lost two dressing rooms in his managerial career - one quite spectacularly.
You can argue he's inflexible absolutely, but then again he's never had any reason to change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"whether the peices were in place is irrelavant"....
Try dropping West Ham into that league with Pep in charge....then tell me that
Pep basically had a work of art that needing touching up....
posted on 4/12/16
comment by Juan Eden Zola (U6000)
posted 5 hours, 45 minutes ago
City could have easily won the game. They created a ton of chances but didn't put them away. We created probably about 5 good chances and put three of them away.
Talking about who should have or who deserved to win is such a waste of time and is far too subjective.
There isn't a Chelsea fan in the world who wouldn't have taken this scenario so talking about anything other than who put the ball in the net and got the three points becomes kind of irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My point wasn't even originally about Chelsea, it was about Guardiola whom the article is supposed to be about, and in the sense that somebody is calling him out for being overrated after this game, it is relevant to mention how on the balance of play City were the better team for the majority, creating the best chances to put the game out of sight because there's nothing Guardiola can do about usually reliable players not finishing chances off, inc. the miss of the season from KDB.
Don't know why Chelsea fans took it upon themselves to get uppity. If they watched the game they should agree anyway that they should have lost (not deserved to lose) the game based on chances City had.
posted on 4/12/16
Slurtle thought we were mates yet you come on here dissing Chelsea left right and centre
posted on 4/12/16
Mr C, you'll always be my number 1 caaaant, you know that.
posted on 4/12/16
I kind of get what Spurtle is saying but 'should have lost' is a bit far.
posted on 4/12/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/16
comment by Kunta Kinte Kante Conte (U1641)
posted 4 minutes ago
I kind of get what Spurtle is saying but 'should have lost' is a bit far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, then they could easily have lost. Is that better?
KDB puts that chance away that he would 99 times out of 100, then it ends up being 2-0, City probably go on to win comfortably, they go top, and Guardiola gets looked on as good a manager as he always has.
posted on 4/12/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 2 of 8
6 | 7 | 8