I had this discussion recently in the Real Madrid Board, and they said that he's a great man motivator and disciplinarian but is not really a great tactician or a phenemenon coach. Other points added on were that he's inherited a fantastic squad built by someone else and simply re-using the classic Rinus Michels/Cruyff Total Football and Possession football which has been used in Barca very well. I still think he's great, but am starting to see the point about his inheritance of a great squad as his transfer dealings save for Piqué and Alves, have been horrible. And as for being a tactician, this has been exposed by their lack of Plan B versus tough sides like Chelsea and Inter Milan. What do you think? Is Guardiola that good? Can he also be successful elsewhere like other top managers?
he is a good young coach who will get better over time Keita has been a good buy as well and he has used his youth team wisely something more experience coaches could learn from of course he isn't the perfect coach and will make mistakes and who hasnt made mistakes in the transfer market btw most if not all coaches would struggle to break down teams that choose to play like Chelsea and Inter Milan take Sir Alex his two champions leagues were arguably won by pure luck instead of tactical genius
He's still inexperienced but he will learn. Of course no matter what happened this season he was never going to replicate what happened last so he was never going to live up to that. As condor said Keita was also his buy and he's been excellent. I think his biggest falws so far in terms of deing with players was the whole Ibrahimovic/Eto'o deal. Let's not forget that he really wanted to get rid of Eto'o since before last season started. His other flaw is imo on the insistence of Busquets over Yaya Toure this season in midfield. Busquets is a good prospect but he's also inexperienced overall and makes a lot of mistakes young players make. Toure is simply a better player and brings more physicality to Barca's midfield.
I think Pep might be a bit overrated, but I never understood this "Plan B" argument. If you're an attack/possession-oriented team and things aren't working well one day and you find yourself losing, what choice do you have besides trying to remain patient and continuing to attack?
I actually think Pep had a plan B in mind - its called Zlatan. Unfortunately there's a problem with Zlatan, which is that he sucks donkey balls. Aside from that, it may have worked. Pep's bigger problem was failing to have any alternative for a center forward. If Zlatan's not doing the job (and lets face it - its Zlatan), he has no one else to bring in for that position other than midgets. He has clearly been taking lessons from Arsene "Arshavin is my CF" Wenger.
But both did play a similar way when they faced Barcelona. And both have very good defenses. Yeah the whole excuse to get Zlatan was supposedly to provde a plan B against teams that bunker. Of course that went down the toilet mostly because it forced Zlatan to be a target man in a way which despite his size he really isn't. He's not very good with his back to goal and he's lazy. Pep had Henry who he could have used at CF but Henry's form dropped so drasically this season it was better to play Pique as a CF than to play Henry. No one could have really predicyed Henry would become an MLS level player this season. Despite everything Barca were really close to getting through had Bojan's goal stood, as it should have, and if that were the case I don't think many people would be saying much.
Not true at all. Chelsea flooded the midfield against Barca and actually produced more chances than Barca, who had basically no shots all game. Inter sat back, let Barca have all the possession they wanted and barely pressed in midfield. Those aren't the same tactics at all. Basically Zlatan sucks, yes. And it was Pep who wanted him so badly.
I would have to say that Chelsea had similar tactics in the first game to Inter in their second game. In Spain they both bunkered. Meanwhile Inter and Chelsea played similarly at home by flooding the midfield and they dominated the games despite having less possession. Surprisingly Chelsea did much better than Inter, but Inter produced the better result... But well... Inter didn't have Ovrebo. So I would say the tactics were similar and at home Chelsea and Inter were clearly the better sides.
Yes Keita has been great, forgot to add his name there. I don't know how last year would have been without Eto'o had Pep sold him. Who was he lining up to replace him? As for Busquets, He can't be that bad. I know Touré is better, but people downtalk busquets like he's costing them games or something. He seems OK, but when Touré comes on you see a better option that should be starting instead which makes Sergio look bad. I think he's alright. Pep perhaps needs to work on his transfers. I read somewhere he had a chance to sign Villa and went for Ibra instead. Was that true?
What has impressed me about Guardiola is that he may have inherited a strong squad, but he's successfully applied his footballing philosophy to it as well. Bare in mind Rijkaaard had this squad (more or less), but it very quickly went t!ts up with him in charge after initial success. Guardiola shipped out any personalaities who were deemed to be disruptive personalities (Ronaldinho, Eto'o), and successfully improved the team in their absence. Against Inter I think he got out-thought by Mourinho, and he needs to work now so that Barcelona don't fall into the same trap that Arsenal did whereby his team enjoy the lions share of possession and chances, but get unravelled by sides who play pragmatically and hit them on the break. Barca are better than Arsenal, obviously, but it has become a recurring theme with Arsenal where they dominate possession, but frequently get hit by more direct, physical sides. I like Guardiola as a coach. He always seems in control, much like Mourinho, but his side play fabulous football. His authority at the club is built on foundations he laid when he was playing there.
I fail to see how the squad improved after Eto'o was shipped out. Plus Ibrahimovic was known in Italy as a very disruptive personality. Ronaldinho had lost it. And shipping him out was obvious.
I meant to include this in my post, actually, but forgot. It was something of a curious decision to ship Eto'o out, and then bring Zlatan in, given his out-spoken history. He has his obvious playing values, but then so did Eto'o. However, we are told that the reason Eto'o was sold was because there was a falling out, so it was strange that he was sold, and then Zlatan, an equally rebelious poersonjality, was brought in as a replacement. From that perspective, it didn't make much sense at all.
Chelsea created more chances because Barca were desperate sending everyone forward so they hit the counter better. Inter were not as desperate to get forward since they had a 2 goal cushion. Chelsea didn't. Overall Barca enjoyed most of the possesion against both teams. Both teams bunkered for most of the second leg of the tie and adopted a counterattacking style which seemed weird for Chelsea since they really aren't a counterattacking side. But both teams have great defenses so they could afford to do that against Barca.
I notice that you and your ilk that were sooo outraged by Ovrebo and are still going on about it a year after the fact don't seem to be saying much about the clear advantages the refs gave Inter over both legs.
Chelsea didn't bunker - they didn't sit NEARLY as deep as Inter. Inter completely conceded the midfield, Chelsea did not. Not playing an all out attacking style is not the same as bunkering.
There were 3 debatable goals/non-goals over the two legs and the call went Inter's way twice. But there seems to be some confusion in this discussion. Barca were of course at home in the first-leg against Chelsea, instead of the second-leg. But if you compare the two matches at Camp Nou, Chelsea and Inter had pretty much the same strategy (bunker).
And one obviously terrible red card to Inter, which was in the 25th minute, forcing Inter to play on the road down a man for nearly the entire match. Barca cannot possibly have any complaints against the refs. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Chelsea flooded the midfield - that's not bunkering. What Chelsea did in '05 at Barcelona was bunkering (another bad red card, but whatever); I remember it well, I was at that particular game. But that's not what happened last year. Anyway, the overall point is that Pep thus far has shown himself to be a pretty good manager but awful at transfers.
Pique's goal was onside. Motta's card was ridiculous but so was Abidal's against Chelsea yet people mostly talk about the calls against Chelsea since they were more. In this tie Barca had more calls go against them than favorable ones. The first match should have ended 2-1 if not for a clear offside goal. There was also a debatable PK against Alves but whatever. If the match had ended 2-1 as it should have it was have completely changed the complexion for Inter going into the second leg since despite having a 1 goal advantage Barca would be seen as heavy favorites because of the away goal they got. It would have probably altered Mourinho's tactics opening up the game a bit more. Aside from that even if Motta was injustly carded Lucio should have been red carded and Bojan's goal towards the end should have stood. The defensive strategy applied by both teams was essentially the same. After Chelsea got the early goal they played deep and Barca controlled most of the possession. The difference was that Chelsea went forward more than Inter did on the counter because they didn't have the cushion Inter had of 2 goals and they knew that just one goal from Barca would elimninate them.
Not too mention in the first game Milito being flagged incorrectly offside that would have put him through on goal, Eto'o fairly stripping the ball from I believe Keita in the first match and getting the whistle blown on him, he also would have probably been through on goal. The officiating may have been flawed, but was pretty fair when you weigh in the calls both for and against both teams. Barca had a man advantage, and couldn't capitalize on their chances, this is what people will remember.
Lol... Inter won thx to the ref? Of all the stupid bull I've heard on this forum. Thing is - everyone agrees on the Ovrebo thing. Almost no-one (except for Barca fans) agree with their being an Inter scandal.
Those are minor things that happen often in games. The Eto'o and Milito incidents would never have guaranteed a goal. It's not the same as having a offside goal stand and a completely valid goal called off. There's quite a difference. I agree Barca should have done better and Inter were the better team overall. . I don't think there was an Inter scandal. I know most people hate the "overrated" Barca but I'd like to see at least some consistency. People bitched like crazy about the ref last year yet this year Inter had clear calls in their favor that altered the result, this is not debatable, yet no one says anything . Bayern got to this final with help from the ref as well yet barely anyone makes a peep about it. If they win it I'm pretty sure people won't still be bitching about that a year from now like we still hear about the Ovrebo crap.
But every time an EPL team gets eliminated by a non-EPL team in the CL there is endless whinging that follows. Even after the 2006 final (which is laughable)l! At this point EPL whiners have lost a lot of credibility. It's like when Drogba goes to ground. Sometimes its a legitimate foul, but I'll just keep assuming he dove and I'll be correct 90% of the time.