DesChyko:


There was a question I put out in that series which you avoided answering. What stunning PL achievements had not existed before Pep came in?

Winning 4 out of 5 PLs isn't new to PL. It has been done before. Three different times by Ferguson. by the same manager. The same Ferguson he is being 'casually compared to'. Stop throwing dominance around. We have lived through dominance.

Is it surprising that they did it? Of course not. They've always been close to winning, even in the years they didn't win it. All teams who have managed back-to-back wins have that in common. They've always remained in the top 3 consistently.

In the first six years under the Sheikh, before Pep, the only time Man City finished outside the top 3 was the season before he was brought in. Before then, they always finished in the top 3, winning 2 out of 5 PLs. In 5 seasons under Pep, they've won 3 out of 5 PLs, remaining in the Top 3 all the while. Man City are more formidable now, but they weren't from ground zero unlike a number of sides who eventually won the PL.

The purchasing power can be matched, but it was never matched and Man City certainly have the goods to show for it. It's a lesson for other clubs to pick up their recruitment to get where they want to be. Arsenal don't really spend as they should, and you can't even compare them to Chelsea, whose consistent successes started way way late than Arsenal's.

In Man United's defence, you could take a stroll through their spending a decade before the Sheikh and you'ld see that it has been low compared to the successes they've had. It's what they are paying for until date as they players were allowed to age and burn out to create a new template for the new boss, without the consistent recruitment to go with it. That's a club's poor decision making. In others' favour.

I do not like to talk down Pep so. What he has done is amazing, in just 5 years of being here but come on, this is the PL, where a number of sides, Man City inclusive, have tasted enviable success along the way. It's not a two-way horse or worse. There have been many managers who have done clearly astounding feats in their own rights. There are many clubs who could take their claims to the title. The standards are a bit higher here. The pockets are deep too.

True there are many managers who have done great things in EPL but none like pep.

Pep had won games than any other manager in EPL history. Pep mancity is the only team that has reached the milestone of 100point and has scored 106 goals than any other team in the history of EPL. Pep is the only manager that has 4 manager of the month award in a roll.

That is dominance! If there is anything left in EPL history to do, Pep has done it all.

Tooreda:
Players were not overpriced in Fergie's era. Besides, Fergie won as many games due to poor officiating. Pep na correct coach.

poor officiating as how just because man u do score die minutes goal most of d time

OJEEMAH:
The same people that called Fergie that coached man u for 26years GREAT still dey criticize Pep wey don tour 3 countries.

After all the hype that he can't dominate EPL like he dominated La liga, now wey e don monopolize the almighty English league, they don set new standard say e must win UCL with a different team before they acknowledge his greatness.

They are all hypocrites..... They should measure Fergie and Pep using same standard let's see the result.

Abi ooo

But why is no one talking about his style of play. They all said tiki taka won't work in premier league and this guy is using this same style to dominate EPL.

Pep is a tactical genius, tbt there is no coach better than him. If you see the way man city plays then you will understand the level pep is.

Com'on I respect Fergie but the man UTD team he coach were not playing fantastic football compare to pep's Mancity.

DareyFortified:



Abi ooo

But why is no one talking about his style of play. They all said tiki taka won't work in premier league and this guy is using this same style to dominate EPL.

Pep is a tactical genius, tbt there is no coach better than him. If you see the way man city plays then you will understand the level pep is.

Com'on I respect Fergie but the man UTD team he coach were not playing fantastic football compare to pep's Mancity.

Just forget those ignorant and highly sentimental folks. All they are good at is downplay Messi & Pep's achievements.

I am very sure their reaction would have been different had another coach dominated like Pep. I understand their anger and frustration cos they all said he can't replicate his success in England. He has not just proven them wrong, he is gradually turning the Almighty EPL to a farmer's league.

in this modern era, how many coach can successfully defend their EPL win?? 3 league in 5years is no joke and people should learn to appreciate success when they see one.

Pep met a team that finished 4th with ageing and some mediocre players. He sold and bought replacement for the old players and those that were sold. he wasn't the only that spent. Mourinho broke world record to sign Pogba. He signed Ibrahimović, Mikhitaryan, Baily, Shaw, and many others but still struggled. Instead of blaming the tactical prowess of their managers, the hypocrites dey claim say Pep bought success with money.

The difference between what Man united and City spent is not even upto one hundred million but what does Man United have to show??

hatred and jealousy no fit allow them appreciate success.

� Chelsea VS Everton
� 20:45
� EPL

Chelsea had won just one in four prior to their 3-2 win over Leeds and the victory will have been a boost for the Blues, particularly with both Manchester City and Liverpool winning at the weekend. They have an excellent home record against Everton and are unbeaten in their last 11 meetings with the Toffees at Stamford Bridge.

�Both Teams To Score + Home Win ✔ 2.92

� Stake More & Win More on NaijaBet.com*

DesChyko:
There was a question I put out in that series which you avoided answering. What stunning PL achievements had not existed before Pep came in?

You don't judge a coach using this yardstick. What did Fergie win that Man united didn't have?? should we now downplay his success and contribution cos Man united had 7 or 8 leagues titles and a European Cup before he joined??

Winning 4 out of 5 PLs isn't new to PL. It has been done before. Most recently, Three different times by Ferguson. by the same manager. The same Ferguson he is being 'casually compared to'. Stop throwing dominance around. We have lived through dominance.

EPL is a much stronger and tougher league compare to the days of Fergie. How many clubs could match the purchasing power of Man United as at then?? Even Arsenal couldn't match Man united financially. Arsene Wenger's tactical prowess was the major reason Arsenal could challenge Man united. The financial strength of Man united didn't start recently. In the past, they smashed numerous British records to sign players like Rooney, Ferdinand and even Roy Keane. So stop sounding like the league has always been tough and every club had money money to spend but couldn't challenge them. Fergie dominated because of the financial weakness of other clubs.

Is it surprising that they did it? Of course not. They've always been close to winning, even in the years they didn't win it. All teams who have managed back-to-back wins have that in common. They've always remained in the top 3 consistently.

If its by staying close, Arsenal should have won the league. Do you even how many years Arsenal spent in the top 4 and how many times they came close to winning the league??

In the first six years under the Sheikh, before Pep, the only time Man City finished outside the top 3 was the season before he was brought in. Before then, they always finished in the top 3, winning 2 out of 5 PLs. In 5 seasons under Pep, they've won 3 out of 5 PLs, remaining in the Top 3 all the while. Man City are more formidable now, but they weren't from ground zero unlike a number of sides who eventually won the PL.

What's your point exactly? You would have acknowledge his dominance and success if he had taken them from ground zero?? Do you remember City finished 4th the previous season and Guardiola had to overhaul and replace some underperforming and ageing players like Demichelis, Sinclair, Milner, Zabaleta, Sagna, Kompany, Clichy, Nasri, Navas, Boyate, kolarov, Joe Hart, Mangala, Fernando and Jovetic??

He scattered and built his own team. The Man City team that won 2 titles didn't dominate 70% of their matches and even the league but this present Man City team dominates 90% of their matches and have successfully won 3 league titles dominating games. You can beat them but definitely can't outplay them.

Only a brilliant coach can make it happen

The purchasing power can be matched, [b]but it was never matched [/b]and Man City certainly have the goods to show for it. It's a lesson for other clubs to pick up their recruitment to get where they want to be. Arsenal don't really spend as they should, and you can't even compare them to Chelsea, whose consistent successes started way way late than Arsenal's.

What do you mean it was never matched?? The difference between Man United and City's expenditure is less than 100 million. Man City can justify their investment but Man united can't. Don't you see the difference is the coach and not the purchasing power??

In Man United's defence, you could take a stroll through their spending a decade before the Sheikh and you'ld see that it has been low compared to the successes they've had. It's what they are paying for until date as they players were allowed to age and burn out to create a new template for the new boss, without the consistent recruitment to go with it. That's a club's poor decision making. In others' favour.

I do not like to talk down Pep so. What he has done is amazing, in just 5 years of being here but come on, this is the PL, where a number of sides, Man City inclusive, have tasted enviable success along the way. It's not a two-way horse or worse. There have been many managers who have done clearly astounding feats in their own rights. There are many clubs who could take their claims to the title. The standards are a bit higher here. The pockets are deep too.

Nobody is disputing the fact that other managers have done well. The point is City's dominance is as a result of Pep's tactical prowess. Attributing their dominance to finance does not hold water cos Man united, Chelsea and even Liverpool can spend as much as Pep's City.

OJEEMAH:
Just forget those ignorant and highly sentimental folks. All they are good at is downplay Messi & Pep's achievements.

I am very sure their reaction would have been different had another coach dominated like Pep. I understand their anger and frustration cos they all said he can't replicate his success in England. He has not just proven them wrong, he is gradually turning the Almighty EPL to a farmer's league.

in this modern era, how many coach can successfully defend their EPL win?? 3 league in 5years is no joke and people should learn to appreciate success when they see one.

Pep met a team that finished 4th with ageing and some mediocre players. He sold and bought replacement for the old players and those that were sold. he wasn't the only that spent. Mourinho broke world record to sign Pogba. He signed Ibrahimović, Mikhitaryan, Baily, Shaw, and many others but still struggled. Instead of blaming the tactical prowess of their managers, the hypocrites dey claim say Pep bought success with money.

The difference between what Man united and City spent is not even upto one hundred million but what does Man United have to show??

hatred and jealousy no fit allow them appreciate success.

Man UTD >>>> City

OJEEMAH:
You don't judge a coach using this yardstick. What did Fergie win that Man united didn't have?? should we now downplay his success and contribution cos Man united had 7 or 8 leagues titles and a European Cup before he joined??

I can and I will. Ferguson won 13 PL titles. No manager of any club in English League history since time has up to half that number. So you can see his success isn't club-defined but a league legacy. And the first of that success came at 26 years since MUFC last tasted PL glory. This in no way defines Pep's arrival or stay at Man City as we speak.

EPL is a much stronger and tougher league compare to the days of Fergie. How many clubs could match the purchasing power of Man United as at then?? Even Arsenal couldn't match Man united financially. Arsene Wenger's tactical prowess was the major reason Arsenal could challenge Man united. The financial strength of Man united didn't start recently. In the past, they smashed numerous British records to sign players like Rooney, Ferdinand and even Roy Keane. So stop sounding like the league has always been tough and every club had money money to spend but couldn't challenge them. Fergie dominated because of the financial weakness of other clubs.[quote]
Thank you for eventually admitting that financial muscles call the shots in the end, using Man United era of dominance as a case study. It's a surprise you repeated a contrasting

[quote]If its by staying close, Arsenal should have won the league. Do you even how many years Arsenal spent in the top 4 and how many times they came close to winning the league??

Between 1997 and 2005, Arsenal won the league three times out of nine. Even though they weren't successive, Arsenal never finished outside the top three.

What's your point exactly? You would have acknowledge his dominance and success if he had taken them from ground zero?? Do you remember City finished 4th the previous season and Guardiola had to overhaul and replace some underperforming and ageing players like Demichelis, Sinclair, Milner, Zabaleta, Sagna, Kompany, Clichy, Nasri, Navas, Boyate, kolarov, Joe Hart, Mangala, Fernando and Jovetic??

I wonder what the intention of the person comparing Ferguson's dominance to Pep's dominance when it is very clear, who successfully did the tougher work. I already clarified that the failure to justify the financial outlay led to the sack of the manager. Pep successfully justified his and is still justifying it. Man United also had aged players. But City had the bigger ambition and outspent them.

He scattered and built his own team. The Man City team that won 2 titles didn't dominate 70% of their matches and even the league but this present Man City team dominates 90% of their matches and have successfully won 3 league titles dominating games. You can beat them but definitely can't outplay them.
Only a brilliant coach can make it happen.

By dominate, I think you mean possession? Lol. So tiki taka is now a judge of the better manager. How myopic. Man Utd side won 13 PLs without tiki taka. Go figure.

What do you mean it was never matched?? The difference between Man United and City's expenditure is less than 100 million. Man City can justify their investment but Man united can't. Don't you see the difference is the coach and not the purchasing power??

Man City outspent everyone since the Sheikh took over. And they did that to get up there and stay there. It's that simple.

Nobody is disputing the fact that other managers have done well. The point is City's dominance is as a result of Pep's tactical prowess. Attributing their dominance to finance does not hold water cos Man united, Chelsea and even Liverpool can spend as much as Pep's City.

Remove the finance and tell me what you see.

Android17:
Because City lost 4 games in 2018/19 and Liverpool lost 1 yet who won the league that season?

Lol