"'Congratulations for Wigan for the qualification, they had one shot on target"
Very classy comment from a manager who's substitute goalkeeper costs over 4 times the amount the opposition's squad cost. The melt down if Jose had sent this would be unreal.
Maybe he should be berating his expensive players into why they couldn't put the ball in the net.
"'Congratulations for Wigan for the qualification, they had one shot on target"
Very classy comment from a manager who's substitute goalkeeper costs over 4 times the amount the opposition's squad cost. The melt down if Jose had sent this would be unreal.
I don't understand the Pep Cult. Seen as some kind of genius by landing jobs with already world-class teams and winning trophies when awarded transfer budgets that eclipse the budget of a micronation.
Exactly. I’ll give him credit for getting his sides to play attractive football, but when you are able to get the best in the world that’s quite a bit easier really.
"'Congratulations for Wigan for the qualification, they had one shot on target"
Very classy comment from a manager who's substitute goalkeeper costs over 4 times the amount the opposition's squad cost. The melt down if Jose had sent this would be unreal.
I don't understand the Pep Cult. Seen as some kind of genius by landing jobs with already world-class teams and winning trophies when awarded transfer budgets that eclipse the budget of a micronation.
The overall spending, as a result of TV money, has gone through the roof and undoubtedly created a bigger void between the PL and the lower divisions. But there has always been that void - ask any of our fans how they felt when the likes of Paul Walsh, Paul Elliott and Killer were sold for example. We had to do it because we needed the money and the Division 1 Clubs had that money.
There is, however, another definition as to the value of a coach and that is whether he actually improves the players under his charge:
Is Sterling a better player than when he was at Liverpool? Is Stones a better player than when he first came to City? Is De Bruyne better than when he was at Chelsea? Is Delph, converted by Guardiola to full back, a better player? Is Otamendi now a much improved centre back? Has Aguero become more of a team player under Guardiola? Has Sane grown to be a more improved footballer? Has Fernandinho become the most complete holding midfielder in the PL?
Pochettino has had similar success with the likes of Kane, Ali, Dier and Winks and Klopp has too with the likes of Salah, Mane and Firminho.
All of the following players were bought for "money":
Pogba at Man Utd (£89m) Lacazette at Arsenal (£47m) Xhaka at Arsenal (£35m) Bakayoka at Chelsea (£40m) Morata at Chelsea (£60m) Drinkwater at Chelsea (£35m) Batshuayi at Chelsea (£33m) Bolasie at Everton (£20m) Schneirdelin at Everton (£20m) Klassen at Everton (£24m) Sigurdsson at Everton (£45m) Keane at Everton (£25m) Slimani at Leicester (£29m) Iheanacho at Leicester (£25m) Benteke at Palace (£27m)
All these 15 players (same number as City have bought in the last 18 months but at a cost a total of £554m - about £140m more than the money spent by Guardiola. And all of them have either struggled to hold down a place at their clubs and/or gone backwards as footballers.
It's not just about spending money but money certainly helps (and City have proven with Sanchez and Mahrez that they will not pay over the top - their largest fee is £57m). It's about buying the right players for the right money at the right age and having a coach that will improve them as players and with the style and within the team framework that is required to be both successful and pleasing to the eye. And that is relative to whatever division the team plays in.
The overall spending, as a result of TV money, has gone through the roof and undoubtedly created a bigger void between the PL and the lower divisions. But there has always been that void - ask any of our fans how they felt when the likes of Paul Walsh, Paul Elliott and Killer were sold for example. We had to do it because we needed the money and the Division 1 Clubs had that money.
There is, however, another definition as to the value of a coach and that is whether he actually improves the players under his charge:
Is Sterling a better player than when he was at Liverpool? Is Stones a better player than when he first came to City? Is De Bruyne than when he was at Chelsea? Is Delph, converted by Guardiola to full back, a better player? Is Otamendi now a much improved centre back? Has Aguero become more of a team player under Guardiola? Has Sane grown to be a more improved footballer? Has Fernandinho become the most complete holding midfielder in the PL?
Pochettino has had similar success with the likes of Kane, Ali, Dier and Winks and Klopp has too with the likes of Salah, Mane and Firminho.
All of the following players were bought for "money":
Pogba at Man Utd (£89m) Lacazette at Arsenal (£47m) Xhaka at Arsenal (£35m) Bakayoka at Chelsea (£40m) Morata at Chelsea (£60m) Drinkwater at Chelsea (£35m) Batshuayi at Chelsea (£33m) Bolasie at Everton (£20m) Schneirdelin at Everton (£20m) Klassen at Everton (£24m) Sigurdsson at Everton (£45m) Keane at Everton (£25m) Slimani at Leicester (£29m) Iheanacho at Leicester (£25m) Benteke at Palace (£27m)
All these 15 players (same number as City have bought in the last 18 months at a cost a total of £554m - about £140m more than the money spent by Guardiola. And all of them have either struggled to hold down a place at their clubs and/or gone backwards as footballers.
It's not just about spending money but money certainly helps (and City have proven with Sanchez and Mahrez that they will not pay over the top - their largest fee is £57m). It's about buying the right players for the right money at the right age and having a coach that will improve them as players and with the style and within the team framework that is required to be both successful and pleasing to the eye. And that is relative to whatever division the team plays in.
The overall spending, as a result of TV money, has gone through the roof and undoubtedly created a bigger void between the PL and the lower divisions. But there has always been that void - ask any of our fans how they felt when the likes of Paul Walsh, Paul Elliott and Killer were sold for example. We had to do it because we needed the money and the Division 1 Clubs had that money.
There is, however, another definition as to the value of a coach and that is whether he actually improves the players under his charge:
Is Sterling a better player than when he was at Liverpool? Is Stones a better player than when he first came to City? Is De Bruyne better than when he was at Chelsea? Is Delph, converted by Guardiola to full back, a better player? Is Otamendi now a much improved centre back? Has Aguero become more of a team player under Guardiola? Has Sane grown to be a more improved footballer? Has Fernandinho become the most complete holding midfielder in the PL?
Pochettino has had similar success with the likes of Kane, Ali, Dier and Winks and Klopp has too with the likes of Salah, Mane and Firminho.
All of the following players were bought for "money":
Pogba at Man Utd (£89m) Lacazette at Arsenal (£47m) Xhaka at Arsenal (£35m) Bakayoka at Chelsea (£40m) Morata at Chelsea (£60m) Drinkwater at Chelsea (£35m) Batshuayi at Chelsea (£33m) Bolasie at Everton (£20m) Schneirdelin at Everton (£20m) Klassen at Everton (£24m) Sigurdsson at Everton (£45m) Keane at Everton (£25m) Slimani at Leicester (£29m) Iheanacho at Leicester (£25m) Benteke at Palace (£27m)
All these 15 players (same number as City have bought in the last 18 months but at a cost a total of £554m - about £140m more than the money spent by Guardiola. And all of them have either struggled to hold down a place at their clubs and/or gone backwards as footballers.
It's not just about spending money but money certainly helps (and City have proven with Sanchez and Mahrez that they will not pay over the top - their largest fee is £57m). It's about buying the right players for the right money at the right age and having a coach that will improve them as players and with the style and within the team framework that is required to be both successful and pleasing to the eye. And that is relative to whatever division the team plays in.
1. I would say yes but he is very young so always would have improved and also lets not forget how good he was under Rogers which prompted City to pay £50 mil
2.Of course Stones is but again with age although I still feel he's still not a great player.
3. Don't understand why you're comparing him to when he was at Chelsea. So is Pepe responsible for his development in Germany and when De Bruyne was still at City.
4. Really can't say, again lets not forget his form previous to signing for City and not just remember him being a bench warmer. He's also played around 25 games as a full back so really hard to gauge.
5. I would say Otemendi has improved greatly "this season" but helps when not having to defend much.
6. Can honestly say, I've not seen much change in Ageruro, I feel he lacks the explosivness that he used to have and has adapted his game a bit to suit like all great players do.
7. Again, a young talented player who will always improve, however I feel his form has dipped this year.
8. No, despite being better in a box to box role, I still feel Kante would be better in holding role as would Dembele. However I agree he greatly improved and in fact I would say the biggest success of Pepe.
Do you not feel that similar things could be said about several players at several big teams? As others have pointed out, a true text of his coaching ability would be if he had coached lesser players at lesser clubs into better players etc
"'Congratulations for Wigan for the qualification, they had one shot on target"
Very classy comment from a manager who's substitute goalkeeper costs over 4 times the amount the opposition's squad cost. The melt down if Jose had sent this would be unreal.
I don't understand the Pep Cult. Seen as some kind of genius by landing jobs with already world-class teams and winning trophies when awarded transfer budgets that eclipse the budget of a micronation.
A common misconception.
People forget that Guardiola turned Barca into that world class team. Obviously they weren't a poor side, but they were still a side who finished EIGHTEEN points behind Real Madrid the season before he took charge.
He took the bold decision to get rid of Deco and Ronaldinho, bought Pique back from Man U where he couldn't get a game, promoted the likes of Pedro and Busquets from the youth team and went and won the treble.
Off the back of the success with Barca he went and got big jobs elsewhere. So what? That's fairly normal in football. You expecting him to rock up at Southampton just for the craic?
The overall spending, as a result of TV money, has gone through the roof and undoubtedly created a bigger void between the PL and the lower divisions. But there has always been that void - ask any of our fans how they felt when the likes of Paul Walsh, Paul Elliott and Killer were sold for example. We had to do it because we needed the money and the Division 1 Clubs had that money.
There is, however, another definition as to the value of a coach and that is whether he actually improves the players under his charge:
Is Sterling a better player than when he was at Liverpool? Is Stones a better player than when he first came to City? Is De Bruyne better than when he was at Chelsea? Is Delph, converted by Guardiola to full back, a better player? Is Otamendi now a much improved centre back? Has Aguero become more of a team player under Guardiola? Has Sane grown to be a more improved footballer? Has Fernandinho become the most complete holding midfielder in the PL?
Pochettino has had similar success with the likes of Kane, Ali, Dier and Winks and Klopp has too with the likes of Salah, Mane and Firminho.
All of the following players were bought for "money":
Pogba at Man Utd (£89m) Lacazette at Arsenal (£47m) Xhaka at Arsenal (£35m) Bakayoka at Chelsea (£40m) Morata at Chelsea (£60m) Drinkwater at Chelsea (£35m) Batshuayi at Chelsea (£33m) Bolasie at Everton (£20m) Schneirdelin at Everton (£20m) Klassen at Everton (£24m) Sigurdsson at Everton (£45m) Keane at Everton (£25m) Slimani at Leicester (£29m) Iheanacho at Leicester (£25m) Benteke at Palace (£27m)
All these 15 players (same number as City have bought in the last 18 months but at a cost a total of £554m - about £140m more than the money spent by Guardiola. And all of them have either struggled to hold down a place at their clubs and/or gone backwards as footballers.
It's not just about spending money but money certainly helps (and City have proven with Sanchez and Mahrez that they will not pay over the top - their largest fee is £57m). It's about buying the right players for the right money at the right age and having a coach that will improve them as players and with the style and within the team framework that is required to be both successful and pleasing to the eye. And that is relative to whatever division the team plays in.
1. I would say yes but he is very young so always would have improved and also lets not forget how good he was under Rogers which prompted City to pay £50 mil
2.Of course Stones is but again with age although I still feel he's still not a great player.
3. Don't understand why you're comparing him to when he was at Chelsea. So is Pepe responsible for his development in Germany and when De Bruyne was still at City.
4. Really can't say, again lets not forget his form previous to signing for City and not just remember him being a bench warmer. He's also played around 25 games as a full back so really hard to gauge.
5. I would say Otemendi has improved greatly "this season" but helps when not having to defend much.
6. Can honestly say, I've not seen much change in Ageruro, I feel he lacks the explosivness that he used to have and has adapted his game a bit to suit like all great players do.
7. Again, a young talented player who will always improve, however I feel his form has dipped this year.
8. No, despite being better in a box to box role, I still feel Kante would be better in holding role as would Dembele. However I agree he greatly improved and in fact I would say the biggest success of Pepe.
Do you not feel that similar things could be said about several players at several big teams? As others have pointed out, a true text of his coaching ability would be if he had coached lesser players at lesser clubs into better players etc
I think that had Guardiola been at Arsenal he would have turned a lot of those youngsters into much better players than when they had joined the club - Walcott and Oxlaide-Chamberlain to name but two. They simply stagnated under Wenger.
I think Pep is a great manager but he obviously has money to help him. If Napoli win Serie A this year I would say Sarri is an incredible manager to have done it with a tight budget playing the most attractive football in Europe. He has such a thin squad and is winning so many games with two of his best players injured (Ghoulam and Milik). I would love to see what he could do with a budget as big as Peps. Would be a great competition to watch in the Prem.
Most expensive team in the history of football on course for 100 points and 100 goals again. So much fun watching this unpredictable league unfold!
And not far behind in terms of money spent are Man Utd who have paid a total of £642m for their squad and should, on the basis of money spent, be on course for 2nd place.
But they're not. They are currently in 7th place with a goal difference of +1 and playing a brand of football the equivalent to The Crazy Gang at Wimbledon when compared to that of City.
Money can but you success. But it doesn't guarantee you anything and it is still down to the coach to get the best out of the team. You only have to look at how Pogba, Sanchez and Lukaku are performing at United under Mourinho (as did so many players at Chelsea including Hazard in the final season of "The Special One" at Chelsea) to realise the difference between him and Guardiola.
I bet Sanchez now wishes that he had not insisted on his demands being met by City because he is a shadow of his former self. Equally, I wonder how Sterling would be doing now had he chosen to go to United instead of City. Probably the same way as Rashford. Acting more as cover for the full back than a threat at the other end of the pitch.
Most expensive team in the history of football on course for 100 points and 100 goals again. So much fun watching this unpredictable league unfold!
And not far behind in terms of money spent are Man Utd who have paid a total of £642m for their squad and should, on the basis of money spent, be on course for 2nd place.
But they're not. They are currently in 7th place with a goal difference of +1 and playing a brand of football the equivalent to The Crazy Gang at Wimbledon when compared to that of City.
Money can but you success. But it doesn't guarantee you anything and it is still down to the coach to get the best out of the team. You only have to look at how Pogba, Sanchez and Lukaku are performing at United under Mourinho (as did so many players at Chelsea including Hazard in the final season of "The Special One" at Chelsea) to realise the difference between him and Guardiola.
I bet Sanchez now wishes that he had not insisted on his demands being met by City because he is a shadow of his former self. Equally, I wonder how Sterling would be doing now had he chosen to go to United instead of City. Probably the same way as Rashford. Acting more as cover for the full back than a threat at the other end of the pitch.
Yep, they are run way, way better than United. Still, the most expensive squad ever assembled are likely to win the league with ease at this rate. We can only hope Liverpool can keep up the pace to give us something to care about.
Got a feeling its more likely to be Chelsea surprisingly at the moment that'll keep pace with them
8th December is when they play each other at Stamford Bridge
Although the Manchester Derby next week might be interesting and throw a spanner in the title race
Certainly dont see a team outside of the top six beating them this year
I didn't want to say Chelsea! It's hard to imagine any of the Premier B teams betting the top six this year.
No Chelsea are probably the one side I dont like seeing win the title... Even more so than Spurs or Liverpool
Probably because of the way they stole Parker and the pitch that time, so will never forgive them for it - Regardless of that though I have been impressed with how Ross Barkley has come alive there so wouldnt mind them winning the title for that reason alone
Most expensive team in the history of football on course for 100 points and 100 goals again. So much fun watching this unpredictable league unfold!
And not far behind in terms of money spent are Man Utd who have paid a total of £642m for their squad and should, on the basis of money spent, be on course for 2nd place.
But they're not. They are currently in 7th place with a goal difference of +1 and playing a brand of football the equivalent to The Crazy Gang at Wimbledon when compared to that of City.
Money can but you success. But it doesn't guarantee you anything and it is still down to the coach to get the best out of the team. You only have to look at how Pogba, Sanchez and Lukaku are performing at United under Mourinho (as did so many players at Chelsea including Hazard in the final season of "The Special One" at Chelsea) to realise the difference between him and Guardiola.
I bet Sanchez now wishes that he had not insisted on his demands being met by City because he is a shadow of his former self. Equally, I wonder how Sterling would be doing now had he chosen to go to United instead of City. Probably the same way as Rashford. Acting more as cover for the full back than a threat at the other end of the pitch.
Yep, they are run way, way better than United. Still, the most expensive squad ever assembled are likely to win the league with ease at this rate. We can only hope Liverpool can keep up the pace to give us something to care about.
Neither Chelsea or Liverpool have been shy in spending either - £370m and £300m respectively since the beginning of last season as opposed to the £200m City shelled out in that time.
Most expensive team in the history of football on course for 100 points and 100 goals again. So much fun watching this unpredictable league unfold!
And not far behind in terms of money spent are Man Utd who have paid a total of £642m for their squad and should, on the basis of money spent, be on course for 2nd place.
But they're not. They are currently in 7th place with a goal difference of +1 and playing a brand of football the equivalent to The Crazy Gang at Wimbledon when compared to that of City.
Money can but you success. But it doesn't guarantee you anything and it is still down to the coach to get the best out of the team. You only have to look at how Pogba, Sanchez and Lukaku are performing at United under Mourinho (as did so many players at Chelsea including Hazard in the final season of "The Special One" at Chelsea) to realise the difference between him and Guardiola.
I bet Sanchez now wishes that he had not insisted on his demands being met by City because he is a shadow of his former self. Equally, I wonder how Sterling would be doing now had he chosen to go to United instead of City. Probably the same way as Rashford. Acting more as cover for the full back than a threat at the other end of the pitch.
Yep, they are run way, way better than United. Still, the most expensive squad ever assembled are likely to win the league with ease at this rate. We can only hope Liverpool can keep up the pace to give us something to care about.
Neither Chelsea or Liverpool have been shy in spending either - £370m and £300m respectively since the beginning of last season as opposed to the £200m City shelled out in that time.
Both Chelsea and Liverpool also spent more on a keeper than City have ever done on any outfield player.
I think you are all missing Fergie's point. We're not talking about a couple of seasons, we're talking about history. Utd have the most league titles and success, albeit modest for their stature, in Europe. City are miles or years behind Utd and Liverpool too. Guardiola is undoubtedly an exceptional coach but he ain't going to be around for decades like Fergie or Wenger etc were.
Comments
Come on Arsenal!
There is, however, another definition as to the value of a coach and that is whether he actually improves the players under his charge:
Is Sterling a better player than when he was at Liverpool?
Is Stones a better player than when he first came to City?
Is De Bruyne better than when he was at Chelsea?
Is Delph, converted by Guardiola to full back, a better player?
Is Otamendi now a much improved centre back?
Has Aguero become more of a team player under Guardiola?
Has Sane grown to be a more improved footballer?
Has Fernandinho become the most complete holding midfielder in the PL?
Pochettino has had similar success with the likes of Kane, Ali, Dier and Winks and Klopp has too with the likes of Salah, Mane and Firminho.
All of the following players were bought for "money":
Pogba at Man Utd (£89m)
Lacazette at Arsenal (£47m)
Xhaka at Arsenal (£35m)
Bakayoka at Chelsea (£40m)
Morata at Chelsea (£60m)
Drinkwater at Chelsea (£35m)
Batshuayi at Chelsea (£33m)
Bolasie at Everton (£20m)
Schneirdelin at Everton (£20m)
Klassen at Everton (£24m)
Sigurdsson at Everton (£45m)
Keane at Everton (£25m)
Slimani at Leicester (£29m)
Iheanacho at Leicester (£25m)
Benteke at Palace (£27m)
All these 15 players (same number as City have bought in the last 18 months but at a cost a total of £554m - about £140m more than the money spent by Guardiola. And all of them have either struggled to hold down a place at their clubs and/or gone backwards as footballers.
It's not just about spending money but money certainly helps (and City have proven with Sanchez and Mahrez that they will not pay over the top - their largest fee is £57m). It's about buying the right players for the right money at the right age and having a coach that will improve them as players and with the style and within the team framework that is required to be both successful and pleasing to the eye. And that is relative to whatever division the team plays in.
2.Of course Stones is but again with age although I still feel he's still not a great player.
3. Don't understand why you're comparing him to when he was at Chelsea. So is Pepe responsible for his development in Germany and when De Bruyne was still at City.
4. Really can't say, again lets not forget his form previous to signing for City and not just remember him being a bench warmer. He's also played around 25 games as a full back so really hard to gauge.
5. I would say Otemendi has improved greatly "this season" but helps when not having to defend much.
6. Can honestly say, I've not seen much change in Ageruro, I feel he lacks the explosivness that he used to have and has adapted his game a bit to suit like all great players do.
7. Again, a young talented player who will always improve, however I feel his form has dipped this year.
8. No, despite being better in a box to box role, I still feel Kante would be better in holding role as would Dembele. However I agree he greatly improved and in fact I would say the biggest success of Pepe.
Do you not feel that similar things could be said about several players at several big teams? As others have pointed out, a true text of his coaching ability would be if he had coached lesser players at lesser clubs into better players etc
People forget that Guardiola turned Barca into that world class team. Obviously they weren't a poor side, but they were still a side who finished EIGHTEEN points behind Real Madrid the season before he took charge.
He took the bold decision to get rid of Deco and Ronaldinho, bought Pique back from Man U where he couldn't get a game, promoted the likes of Pedro and Busquets from the youth team and went and won the treble.
Off the back of the success with Barca he went and got big jobs elsewhere. So what? That's fairly normal in football. You expecting him to rock up at Southampton just for the craic?
They put together a damned better effort than Chelsea today!!
Since Man Utd last scored 5 goals in a domestic match, Man City have done it TWENTY-EIGHT times.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9264023/Sir-Alex-Ferguson-it-will-take-Manchester-City-100-years-to-match-Manchester-Uniteds-history.html
But they're not. They are currently in 7th place with a goal difference of +1 and playing a brand of football the equivalent to The Crazy Gang at Wimbledon when compared to that of City.
Money can but you success. But it doesn't guarantee you anything and it is still down to the coach to get the best out of the team. You only have to look at how Pogba, Sanchez and Lukaku are performing at United under Mourinho (as did so many players at Chelsea including Hazard in the final season of "The Special One" at Chelsea) to realise the difference between him and Guardiola.
I bet Sanchez now wishes that he had not insisted on his demands being met by City because he is a shadow of his former self. Equally, I wonder how Sterling would be doing now had he chosen to go to United instead of City. Probably the same way as Rashford. Acting more as cover for the full back than a threat at the other end of the pitch.
8th December is when they play each other at Stamford Bridge
Although the Manchester Derby next week might be interesting and throw a spanner in the title race
Certainly dont see a team outside of the top six beating them this year
bettingbeating the top six this year.Probably because of the way they stole Parker and the pitch that time, so will never forgive them for it - Regardless of that though I have been impressed with how Ross Barkley has come alive there so wouldnt mind them winning the title for that reason alone
Der Spiegel's stories last week on PSG and City were very revealing: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/financial-fair-play-manchester-city-and-psg-pact-with-the-sheikhs-a-1236414.html