King Guardiola says he would have been sacked at a bigger club

[MuespachRam]

12 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

No English club is on the level of Barca or Bayern. Pep just stating the obvious really.

except for Manchester United of course

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, Jourdan said:

15 points behind and never a serious threat to Chelsea, the same Chelsea team that finished in 10th last season, was not what I expected, that's for sure.

I didn't expect Guardiola to come in and win everything immediately either. Second at best, to be honest. I just expected to see signs that he was the real deal and worth all the hype. But a lot of what he has done so far at City seems counter intuitive to me if he wants to win anything at all here in England.

Too much emphasis on buying for the future, too much emphasis on signing flair players, too keen to force out or alienate players who made up the core of previously successful sides, unable to get the best out of many of his players and seemingly unable to get his players to execute or buy into his vision. All areas where the likes of Conte, Pochettino and Klopp have seemed to gain more traction or shown a greater understanding of what works here.

You say that Guardiola isn't a miracle worker. But where others have bettered him is man-management. You look at how Conte has transformed the Chelsea careers of Pedro and Moses and got the best out of Luiz, Azpilicueta, Hazard and Costa, as a prime example. Why are such things beyond Guardiola? You are selling this City team short. They were title favourites in many people's eyes at the start of the season.

You said it yourself, the defence was the obvious place to address. So why sign just one defender and a goalkeeper? Surely Stones and Bravo alone were never going to be enough. As an example, the first thing I would have done is called Southampton and prised Virgil van Dijk away.

Guardiola needs two more summers? To do what? To achieve what Conte achieved in one? Be more precise.

But Conte took over a title winning side, and he added to it with Luiz, Alonso and Kante - the latter being arguably one of the best holding midfielders in the world right now.

Chelsea won the league 15 months ago achieving 87 points. They look like hitting 93 this term, the second highest ever recorded if I'm not mistaken.

Sure the gap between City and Chelsea doesn't look too good, but City were never going to better last season's tally by 20 points with the bulk of their arrivals being players years away from their prime.

Not many expected Chelsea to win the league at such a canter, but them doing so shouldn't be a stick to beat Pep with. Conte has had a free run at it, with no Europe, with a title winning team already there.

I don't see Costa or Hazard as any better now than they were 15 months ago. The same can be said of Azpilicueta, Pedro at Barca or Fabregas. They all massively underachieved last season.

I also don't think I'm selling this City team short. De Bruyne, Aguero and Silva aside, they don't have anyone else who would get in Arsenal, Tottenham or Chelsea's best XI. Kompany when fit, but he never is these days.

I'm not trying to claim Pep has had a great debut season. Considering what he took over though, I think he's had a solid debut season and progress has been evident.

Guardiola needs two more windows to ship out those who are past it or not up to standards - Clichy, Zabaleta, Sagna, Jesus Navas, Kolarov, Fernando, Caballero, Otamendi, Delph and Yaya Toure who has just turned 34!

Even the next batch of first-teamers - Silva (31), Fernandinho (32), Kompany (31) have a max of two years left at the top level while Aguero turns 29 next month and has already hinted at a return to Argentina in 2019.

De Bruyne (25), Jesus (20), Sane (21), Stones (22), Sterling (22) and Gundogan (26) are the only players you can imagine will still be there in three/four years time - four were signed by Pep last summer!

Compare that to Chelsea - Courtois (25), Alonso (26), Zouma (22), Ake (22), Azpilicueta (27), N'Kante (26), Hazard (26), Moses (26), Batshauyi (23) plus the numerous players they have out on loan for the foreseeable future.

Players like Costa (28), Willian (28), Pedro (29), Matic (28), Fabregas (30), Luiz (30) are all in their prime now. The only first-team Chelsea player over 30 is Cahill at 31. Compare that to City and you can see a big difference.

Conte walked in on a PL winning side, Pep walked in on an ageing City side.

You can see why City are going to stick with Pep and give the ability to change things. City will go through the highest turnover of players over the next 3 years. They simply have to!

 

 

[Boycie]

I'm no expert, but every interview I've seen of him is of him looking throughly pee'd off and not wanting to be there.

Are there any top jobs opening up this summer abroad? Could be angling for a move.

[Ghost of Clough]

6 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

But Conte took over a title winning side, and he added to it with Luiz, Alonso and Kante - the latter being arguably one of the best holding midfielders in the world right now.

Chelsea won the league 15 months ago achieving 87 points. They look like hitting 93 this term, the second highest ever recorded if I'm not mistaken.

Sure the gap between City and Chelsea doesn't look too good, but City were never going to better last season's tally by 20 points with the bulk of their arrivals being players years away from their prime.

Not many expected Chelsea to win the league at such a canter, but them doing so shouldn't be a stick to beat Pep with. Conte has had a free run at it, with no Europe, with a title winning team already there.

I don't see Costa or Hazard as any better now than they were 15 months ago. The same can be said of Azpilicueta, Pedro at Barca or Fabregas. They all massively underachieved last season.

I also don't think I'm selling this City team short. De Bruyne, Aguero and Silva aside, they don't have anyone else who would get in Arsenal, Tottenham or Chelsea's best XI. Kompany when fit, but he never is these days.

I'm not trying to claim Pep has had a great debut season. Considering what he took over though, I think he's had a solid debut season and progress has been evident.

Guardiola needs two more windows to ship out those who are past it or not up to standards - Clichy, Zabaleta, Sagna, Jesus Navas, Kolarov, Fernando, Caballero, Otamendi, Delph and Yaya Toure who has just turned 34!

Even the next batch of first-teamers - Silva (31), Fernandinho (32), Kompany (31) have a max of two years left at the top level while Aguero turns 29 next month and has already hinted at a return to Argentina in 2019.

De Bruyne (25), Jesus (20), Sane (21), Stones (22), Sterling (22) and Gundogan (26) are the only players you can imagine will still be there in three/four years time - four were signed by Pep last summer!

Compare that to Chelsea - Courtois (25), Alonso (26), Zouma (22), Ake (22), Azpilicueta (27), N'Kante (26), Hazard (26), Moses (26), Batshauyi (23) plus the numerous players they have out on loan for the foreseeable future.

Players like Costa (28), Willian (28), Pedro (29), Matic (28), Fabregas (30), Luiz (30) are all in their prime now. The only first-team Chelsea player over 30 is Cahill at 31. Compare that to City and you can see a big difference.

Conte walked in on a PL winning side, Pep walked in on an ageing City side.

You can see why City are going to stick with Pep and give the ability to change things. City will go through the highest turnover of players over the next 3 years. They simply have to!

 

 

The last Man City Squad to win the league (bold = at Man City when Pep took over)

Hart

Zabaleta, Kolorov, Kompany, Demichelis, Clichy, Nastasic, Lescott

Toure, Nasri, Fernandinho, Navas, Silva, Milner, Javi Garcia

Negredo, Dzeko, Aguero, Jovetic

 

So that's 12 winners which Man City still had at the start of this season. Compared with Chelsea who just won it with only 8 winners (10 if you include Terry and Zouma as part players)

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

The test is how did/will they finish this season compared to last? (I really don't know as I'm not interested in them)

[Bris Vegas]

4 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The last Man City Squad to win the league (bold = at Man City when Pep took over)

Hart

Zabaleta, Kolorov, Kompany, Demichelis, Clichy, Nastasic, Lescott

Toure, Nasri, Fernandinho, Navas, Silva, Milner, Javi Garcia

Negredo, Dzeko, Aguero, Jovetic

 

So that's 12 winners which Man City still had at the start of this season. Compared with Chelsea who just won it with only 8 winners (10 if you include Terry and Zouma as part players)

Only one of those bolded players is under 30. That's the key difference, Pep took over a City side in the decline (last season 66 points!) and the year before that they also fell short.

He isn't a miracle worker, he needs to mould his own squad and it's totally unfair to judge him on the cards he has been dealt. Nobody would have won the PL with City this season.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

Only one of those bolded players is under 30. That's the key difference, Pep took over a City side in the decline (last season 66 points!) and the year before that they also fell short.

He isn't a miracle worker, he needs to mould his own squad and it's totally unfair to judge him on the cards he has been dealt. Nobody would have won the PL with City this season.

Why pluck the age of 30 out of nowhere? Peak age is more widely considered in the region of 27-31. At the start of the season Chelsea had 10 first team players from last season fall into this category. Man City had 13. So the same team with more winners also has the more experienced players.

Based on the same peak years, Chelsea had two (Ivanovic and Terry) whilst Man City had three (Demichelis, Yaya and Zabaleta). There wasn't too much difference in how much these players featured for each team.

From of the players who played in more than 50% of the league games, Man City's average age was only half a year older than Chelsea's

Perhaps it's a case of Conte better acknowledging what he had when he took over, and using those players much more effectively. 

[Jourdan]

13 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

But Conte took over a title winning side, and he added to it with Luiz, Alonso and Kante - the latter being arguably one of the best holding midfielders in the world right now.

Chelsea won the league 15 months ago achieving 87 points. They look like hitting 93 this term, the second highest ever recorded if I'm not mistaken.

Sure the gap between City and Chelsea doesn't look too good, but City were never going to better last season's tally by 20 points with the bulk of their arrivals being players years away from their prime.

Not many expected Chelsea to win the league at such a canter, but them doing so shouldn't be a stick to beat Pep with. Conte has had a free run at it, with no Europe, with a title winning team already there.

I don't see Costa or Hazard as any better now than they were 15 months ago. The same can be said of Azpilicueta, Pedro at Barca or Fabregas. They all massively underachieved last season.

I also don't think I'm selling this City team short. De Bruyne, Aguero and Silva aside, they don't have anyone else who would get in Arsenal, Tottenham or Chelsea's best XI. Kompany when fit, but he never is these days.

I'm not trying to claim Pep has had a great debut season. Considering what he took over though, I think he's had a solid debut season and progress has been evident.

Guardiola needs two more windows to ship out those who are past it or not up to standards - Clichy, Zabaleta, Sagna, Jesus Navas, Kolarov, Fernando, Caballero, Otamendi, Delph and Yaya Toure who has just turned 34!

Even the next batch of first-teamers - Silva (31), Fernandinho (32), Kompany (31) have a max of two years left at the top level while Aguero turns 29 next month and has already hinted at a return to Argentina in 2019.

De Bruyne (25), Jesus (20), Sane (21), Stones (22), Sterling (22) and Gundogan (26) are the only players you can imagine will still be there in three/four years time - four were signed by Pep last summer!

Compare that to Chelsea - Courtois (25), Alonso (26), Zouma (22), Ake (22), Azpilicueta (27), N'Kante (26), Hazard (26), Moses (26), Batshauyi (23) plus the numerous players they have out on loan for the foreseeable future.

Players like Costa (28), Willian (28), Pedro (29), Matic (28), Fabregas (30), Luiz (30) are all in their prime now. The only first-team Chelsea player over 30 is Cahill at 31. Compare that to City and you can see a big difference.

Conte walked in on a PL winning side, Pep walked in on an ageing City side.

You can see why City are going to stick with Pep and give the ability to change things. City will go through the highest turnover of players over the next 3 years. They simply have to!

 

 

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/37040156

Go back to August 2016. Look at what many analysts were predicting. The majority were expecting City to win the title.

Where did that confidence come from? 

If City's band of pensioners were in such disarray and it was such an impossible job to mount a title challenge with this group of misfits, why were they the clear favourites to win the title? How could so many knowledgeable people within the game be so wrong?

You are making excuses for Pep and his underachievement, plain and simple.

What do you see that points to a clear and coherent strategy with promise for the future? All I see is a man who started to believe his own hype and thought everything he touched turned to gold and now he is faced with the reality.

In terms of recruitment, tactics and man management, he has been left in the dust this year.

Maybe next year will be different. But I have major doubts and I am sure the fans, players and directors at City all do too. He seems too stubborn, abrasive and not the type of personality who can engender team spirit and fight from his players. He doesn't deal well with adversity and he doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of what works in the English game. So I think it'll be another year of missing the mark.

[Ghost of Clough]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Based on the same peak years, Chelsea had two players in decline (Ivanovic and Terry) whilst Man City had three (Demichelis, Yaya and Zabaleta). There wasn't too much difference in how much these players featured for each team.

Edited

[Bris Vegas]

1 hour ago, Jourdan said:

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/37040156

Go back to August 2016. Look at what many analysts were predicting. The majority were expecting City to win the title.

Where did that confidence come from? 

If City's band of pensioners were in such disarray and it was such an impossible job to mount a title challenge with this group of misfits, why were they the clear favourites to win the title? How could so many knowledgeable people within the game be so wrong?

You are making excuses for Pep and his underachievement, plain and simple.

What do you see that points to a clear and coherent strategy with promise for the future? All I see is a man who started to believe his own hype and thought everything he touched turned to gold and now he is faced with the reality.

In terms of recruitment, tactics and man management, he has been left in the dust this year.

Maybe next year will be different. But I have major doubts and I am sure the fans, players and directors at City all do too. He seems too stubborn, abrasive and not the type of personality who can engender team spirit and fight from his players. He doesn't deal well with adversity and he doesn't seem to have much of a grasp of what works in the English game. So I think it'll be another year of missing the mark.

They probably predicted the title as the hold Guardiola in some sort of superhuman status. He's a world class manager, not a miracle worker.

It was obvious City were on the decline. Look at the age of the majority of their players, and look at their performances over the past two years.

Pep's underachievement. Ok, tell me what you expected from him this season? 85+ points with an ageing squad on the decline who managed just 66 last season? 

The majority of his recruitment has been for the future. Just like Pochettino who managed just 64 points in his first Tottenham season.

Your expectations of him are simply unrealistic. Like I said, he only inherited three players would get into Chelsea, Arsenal or Tottenham's side. 

The rest were ageing, on the decline players. You can't win a PL title with 8 or 9 first-teamers above the age of 30

[cannable]

3 hours ago, Jourdan said:

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/37040156

Go back to August 2016. Look at what many analysts were predicting. The majority were expecting City to win the title.

Where did that confidence come from? 

In all fairness I remember pundits saying how we were going to challenge blah blah blah before Fulham Newcastle on (their) opening day and being sat their thinking "you're in for a surprise".

[Jourdan]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

They probably predicted the title as the hold Guardiola in some sort of superhuman status. He's a world class manager, not a miracle worker.

It was obvious City were on the decline. Look at the age of the majority of their players, and look at their performances over the past two years.

Pep's underachievement. Ok, tell me what you expected from him this season? 85+ points with an ageing squad on the decline who managed just 66 last season? 

The majority of his recruitment has been for the future. Just like Pochettino who managed just 64 points in his first Tottenham season.

Your expectations of him are simply unrealistic. Like I said, he only inherited three players would get into Chelsea, Arsenal or Tottenham's side. 

The rest were ageing, on the decline players. You can't win a PL title with 8 or 9 first-teamers above the age of 30

But that's my point. If it was so obvious City were on the decline, how could so many experts miss it? Why would they have such unfathomable expectations?

What did I expect from Pep? I thought City would be more competitive. Not necessarily winning competitions, but looking more competitive. I had them down to finish second in the PL, as an example.  I've always maintained that I thought Chelsea would finish as champions. From day one. But I thought City would be their closest rivals. I thought Guardiola would get more out of what is a capable group.

To me, his transfer dealings just haven't been very astute. Gundogan will prove to be his best signing. He was unfortunate to get injured and I'm surprised Pep didn't opt to sign other players with the same profile - proven, experienced and very capable at the highest level. As for the rest, it was the equivalent of taking £140 million out on a boozy Las Vegas night.

How is it feasible to compare Guardiola and Pochettino? Their remits and budgets are massively different. City can go out and spend more on one player than Spurs typically spend in an entire window. Alli, Dier, Trippier, Alderweireld and Wanyama were signed for a combined total less than the price of John Stones. They are not starting from equal positions. Guardiola is expected to bring titles, trophies and success. Pochettino is achieving way beyond what anyone anticipated when he first joined Spurs. Challenging for 4th, yes. Title challenges, no. Or are you saying that 4th is the limit of City's expectations? If he recruits in the same vein as this year, maybe.

Honestly, Pep could learn from Pochettino. With Spurs, their best signings in recent years have been those with previous experience in England - Dembele, Alderweireld, Wanyama, Alli as prime examples. Only Stones knew the demands of the English game, so is it any wonder the likes of Bravo, Nolito, Sane and Jesus have been hit and miss?

Pep only inherited three players that would get into Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs's teams? You could make the same argument for Ranieri's Leicester in 2015-16 and it didn't stop them, did it? Football is not about individuals, it's about teams. The point is that Conte, Klopp and Pochettino have built and are building teams with a clear direction and a clear avenue to success.

What Guardiola is doing at City is puzzling.

[Bris Vegas]

2 hours ago, Jourdan said:

But that's my point. If it was so obvious City were on the decline, how could so many experts miss it? Why would they have such unfathomable expectations?

What did I expect from Pep? I thought City would be more competitive. Not necessarily winning competitions, but looking more competitive. I had them down to finish second in the PL, as an example.  I've always maintained that I thought Chelsea would finish as champions. From day one. But I thought City would be their closest rivals. I thought Guardiola would get more out of what is a capable group.

To me, his transfer dealings just haven't been very astute. Gundogan will prove to be his best signing. He was unfortunate to get injured and I'm surprised Pep didn't opt to sign other players with the same profile - proven, experienced and very capable at the highest level. As for the rest, it was the equivalent of taking £140 million out on a boozy Las Vegas night.

How is it feasible to compare Guardiola and Pochettino? Their remits and budgets are massively different. City can go out and spend more on one player than Spurs typically spend in an entire window. Alli, Dier, Trippier, Alderweireld and Wanyama were signed for a combined total less than the price of John Stones. They are not starting from equal positions. Guardiola is expected to bring titles, trophies and success. Pochettino is achieving way beyond what anyone anticipated when he first joined Spurs. Challenging for 4th, yes. Title challenges, no. Or are you saying that 4th is the limit of City's expectations? If he recruits in the same vein as this year, maybe.

Honestly, Pep could learn from Pochettino. With Spurs, their best signings in recent years have been those with previous experience in England - Dembele, Alderweireld, Wanyama, Alli as prime examples. Only Stones knew the demands of the English game, so is it any wonder the likes of Bravo, Nolito, Sane and Jesus have been hit and miss?

Pep only inherited three players that would get into Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs's teams? You could make the same argument for Ranieri's Leicester in 2015-16 and it didn't stop them, did it? Football is not about individuals, it's about teams. The point is that Conte, Klopp and Pochettino have built and are building teams with a clear direction and a clear avenue to success.

What Guardiola is doing at City is puzzling.

How can you say what Guardiola is doing at City is puzzling? Jesus, Sane, Gundogan and Stones are four of their six youngest squad players - all bought by Pep.

He is clearly building a squad for the future, just like Pochettino is doing at Spurs.

How much more competitive did you expect them to be? They lost in an FA Cup semi-final they dominated, lost on away goals to a CL semi-finalist who battered Spurs home and away and are set to finish 12 points ahead of last season.

You're being incredibly harsh and it's most probable you think this way because your expectations are inflated.

City had an ageing squad on the decline. They weren't capable of winning the league, last season's 66 points haul showed that.

Why would Pep buy proven, experienced players when City were already littered with ageing players. In today's market a proven player like Griezmann or Reus costs 60 million.

City overspent on Stones (nothing to do with Pep how much they offer) while Sane and Jesus are players for the next 10 years.

You're right football is about teams. So let Pep build his own team and then judge him.

SAF didn't build his United dynasty in his first season. Took him 5 years to win a trophy.

[Jourdan]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

How can you say what Guardiola is doing at City is puzzling? Jesus, Sane, Gundogan and Stones are four of their six youngest squad players - all bought by Pep.

He is clearly building a squad for the future, just like Pochettino is doing at Spurs.

How much more competitive did you expect them to be? They lost in an FA Cup semi-final they dominated, lost on away goals to a CL semi-finalist who battered Spurs home and away and are set to finish 12 points ahead of last season.

You're being incredibly harsh and it's most probable you think this way because your expectations are inflated.

City had an ageing squad on the decline. They weren't capable of winning the league, last season's 66 points haul showed that.

Why would Pep buy proven, experienced players when City were already littered with ageing players. In today's market a proven player like Griezmann or Reus costs 60 million.

City overspent on Stones (nothing to do with Pep how much they offer) while Sane and Jesus are players for the next 10 years.

You're right football is about teams. So let Pep build his own team and then judge him.

SAF didn't build his United dynasty in his first season. Took him 5 years to win a trophy.

Time will tell if Pep can get to grips with the PL and implement his vision. I just don't see a clear avenue to success for Guardiola and City, be it 3, 5 or 10 years. He is being outdone by supposedly inferior managers. I don't think his ego can take much more.

If last season under Pellegrini showed that City were incapable of winning the title, what does that say about Chelsea who finished six places lower and 16 points worse off than City and under Conte, they improved by 40 points the following year? Once you press that reset button, anything goes.

The difference is that Pochettino's project seems very much in line with a club like Spurs, who haven't won a trophy in nine years and are only now beginning to establish themselves as a genuine top four side. Gradual and steady progress is appreciated, there are clear pathways to the first team for new players, young players from their academy are integrated into the squad and given opportunities, and pretty much every signing adds value. 

City have won two league titles and three cups in five years, so I don't see any correlation between what Spurs are doing and what City are doing. They are shopping at different markets and eating from different plates.

You talk about Pep signing players for the next 10 years, but what about the here and now? There are points and prizes to be played for and I don't think anyone at City is content with just taking part. This is why it surprised me that more signings weren't in the Gundogan mould - a top class player with experience who can add value to the team now. When you have appointed a world class manager, you expect them to pinpoint players that can improve you now as well as players who will improve you in the future. A proven player costs £60 million, yes, but surely it's always better to buy one excellent player than three average ones.

You talk about Pep building for the future but is that really part of his remit? City want trophies, titles and success and they appointed Guardiola based on his past record of delivering exactly that. This is modern football. You simply don't find that kind of longevity any more, so talk of Pep creating a dynasty is daft.

I'll be surprised if he stays at City for five years, never mind 10 or 20 years. Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson are exceptional cases. Using the example of Ferguson not winning a trophy in five years at United is also daft because A) he won the FA Cup four years after he arrived and B) job security in the modern game is a totally different animal. Clubs are not that patient nowadays.

Anyway, we're not getting anywhere with this. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Ghost of Clough]

31 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

Time will tell if Pep can get to grips with the PL and implement his vision. I just don't see a clear avenue to success for Guardiola and City, be it 3, 5 or 10 years. He is being outdone by supposedly inferior managers. I don't think his ego can take much more.

If last season under Pellegrini showed that City were incapable of winning the title, what does that say about Chelsea who finished six places lower and 16 points worse off than City and under Conte, they improved by 40 points the following year? Once you press that reset button, anything goes.

The difference is that Pochettino's project seems very much in line with a club like Spurs, who haven't won a trophy in nine years and are only now beginning to establish themselves as a genuine top four side. Gradual and steady progress is appreciated, there are clear pathways to the first team for new players, young players from their academy are integrated into the squad and given opportunities, and pretty much every signing adds value. 

City have won two league titles and three cups in five years, so I don't see any correlation between what Spurs are doing and what City are doing. They are shopping at different markets and eating from different plates.

You talk about Pep signing players for the next 10 years, but what about the here and now? There are points and prizes to be played for and I don't think anyone at City is content with just taking part. This is why it surprised me that more signings weren't in the Gundogan mould - a top class player with experience who can add value to the team now. When you have appointed a world class manager, you expect them to pinpoint players that can improve you now as well as players who will improve you in the future. A proven player costs £60 million, yes, but surely it's always better to buy one excellent player than three average ones.

You talk about Pep building for the future but is that really part of his remit? City want trophies, titles and success and they appointed Guardiola based on his past record of delivering exactly that. This is modern football. You simply don't find that kind of longevity any more, so talk of Pep creating a dynasty is daft.

I'll be surprised if he stays at City for five years, never mind 10 or 20 years. Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson are exceptional cases. Using the example of Ferguson not winning a trophy in five years at United is also daft because A) he won the FA Cup four years after he arrived and B) job security in the modern game is a totally different animal. Clubs are not that patient nowadays.

Anyway, we're not getting anywhere with this. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

It doesn't matter. Man City were a team in decline and lacked winners. Chelsea had a squad full of young winners. Guardiola had no chance! category. 

 

Despite Man City still having more 'winners' than Chelsea from their last league title, the average age of the core group of players only being half a year higher, and more players in the 'peak age' category. 

[Bris Vegas]

4 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It doesn't matter. Man City were a team in decline and lacked winners. Chelsea had a squad full of young winners. Guardiola had no chance! category. 

 

Despite Man City still having more 'winners' than Chelsea from their last league title, the average age of the core group of players only being half a year higher, and more players in the 'peak age' category. 

What are you talking about. City had only two first-teamers under 30 when Pep took over while Chelsea had just one player over 30 - two if you count Terry.

Chelsea massively underachieved last season. Their position didn't reflect the quality in their squad, especially after the previous two seasons of finishing on 85 and 87 points.

The winners you bolded for City - look how many are over the hill. They wouldn't get in any other top six side. 

The core group of players have a good three/four years difference, with a number of Chelsea players around the 28 mark and City around 31/32. 

Sagna (34), Toure (34), Zabaleta (32), Kolarov (31), Fernandinho (32), Navas (31), Clichy (31), Caballero (35), Silva (31), Kompany (31) - does this sound like a youthful side? 

Guardiola has to conduct a squad overhaul as the players he has aren't good enough and are too old. Nobody could win a league title with that lot, especially using Guardiola's preferred pressing style.

[Mostyn6]

13 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

City had an ageing squad on the decline. They weren't capable of winning the league, last season's 66 points haul showed that.

how do you justify this 'excuse' when you compare to Chelsea's 2 seasons in the same way?

[Ghost of Clough]

7 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

What are you talking about. City had only two first-teamers under 30 when Pep took over while Chelsea had just one player over 30 - two if you count Terry.

Chelsea massively underachieved last season. Their position didn't reflect the quality in their squad, especially after the previous two seasons of finishing on 85 and 87 points.

The winners you bolded for City - look how many are over the hill. They wouldn't get in any other top six side. 

The core group of players have a good three/four years difference, with a number of Chelsea players around the 28 mark and City around 31/32. 

Sagna (34), Toure (34), Zabaleta (32), Kolarov (31), Fernandinho (32), Navas (31), Clichy (31), Caballero (35), Silva (31), Kompany (31) - does this sound like a youthful side? 

Guardiola has to conduct a squad overhaul as the players he has aren't good enough and are too old. Nobody could win a league title with that lot, especially using Guardiola's preferred pressing style.

Firstly, I must appologise. The difference wasn't 0.5 years, it was 0.8 years. 

However, as usual you're taking things out of context and looking at the squads they're left with at the current time.

Core group of players: more than 50% of games last season

Age listed: start of season

 

Chelsea

Terry 35

Ivanovic 32

Cahill 30

Fabregas 29

Mikel 29

Pedro 29

Willian 28

Costa 27

Matic 27

Azpilicueta 26

Hazard 25

Courtois 24

Oscar 24

Zouma 21

Average = 27.6

 

Man City

Demichelis 36

Sagna 33

Toure 33

Fernandinho 31

Kolorov 30

Navas 30

Silva 30

Hart 29

Fernando 29

Aguero 28

Otamendi 28

Bony 27

Mangala 26

De Bruyne 25

Sterling 21

Iheanacho 19

Average: 28.4

 

Lets have a look look at the average age of their players at the current moment in time. Chelsea have lowered there's by 0.2 (27.4) and Man City by 0.1 (28.3).

Conte sold a couple of his older players, limited the use of Terry, and bought in younger players who will be good for the present and the next 5 years, plus one slightly older who is of high quality.

Pep bought a mixed bag. Some young and can play to a high standard now, some young and won't play to a high standard for a season or two, plus a couple of old players who aren't anywhere near the required standard. They released their oldest player and sold/loaned out a number of young-ish squad players of decent quality. He also insisted on keeping and playing those over the hill / in decline pensioners.

 

The reality is Pep was too arrogant and naive. Replacing Hart with Bravo has been his biggest downfall this season and increased the average age in the process. Swapping them maybe is the difference which has even cost them the title (they definitely would be at least second). You know you've ballsed up when your keeper makes the simplest of saves, your own supporters cheer it as if he just pulled off a worldie, and sends everyone else into a state of shock. At one point he conceded 16 goals from just 24 shots. How many for Lloris, De Gea and Courtois (Hart normally falls into this category)? 6, 6 and 5 respectively. 

[Sexydadbod]

The thing no-one seems to be pointing out is that Pep was justified in getting rid of Hart. He was awful in the euros and has carried his very poor form with him to Torino, with their president even coming out and saying they didn't expect hart to make as many mistakes as he has. It's a fine line between success and failure. No-one could have predicted Bravo's sudden run of poor form. If he had been performing like a lloris has, pep would be lauded as a genius.

I think Man City will win the league next season because pep will identify what he needs in the summer and I think this season he was giving many players a chance. Don't forget they will have gundogan back next season too who made everything tick in their side and a full season for Gabriel Jesus.

For me, Man City need 5 players: Goalkeeper, right back, centre back, left back and cdm

Get Schmeichel, Walker, Van Dijk, Mendy and Fabinho in those positions and they'd be fine. That would cost about 150 million maximum which is nothing to the top English clubs nowadays. That combined with the sales of Hart, Bravo, Zabaleta, Mangala, Toure, Nasri, Delph, Bony, Kolorov/Clichy, Jesus Navas, Nolito and they'd probably only have to actually spend about 50 million 

 

[RoyMac5]

41 minutes ago, McLovin said:

...No-one could have predicted Bravo's sudden run of poor form. If he had been performing like a lloris has, pep would be lauded as a genius.

Errr that is what Pep is there for. Perhaps he should have bought another keeper?