Jose Mourinho vs Pep Guardiola

I've always thought that the battle of philosophies between Real Madrid and Barcelona have been extraordinary, such a difference of taste creates a variety of conflicts which have been if anything, amazing to watch. A focal point in the overall conflict in recent ages has been the comparison between Jose Mourinho, and Pep Guardiola, and the ultimate question being, who is the "better" coach/manager.

A variety of different sub-topics can be taken into consideration when analyzing different facets of the argument. The style, the victories, the defeats, the way of managing, the way of presenting them selves, it is such a grand conflict that could be talked about for a long while, what makes one manager better than the other one?

We could talk about the tastes in ourselves as individuals, some of us enjoy a type of football more than the other, but is the image that many have of each coach a clear reality? I'll pose my argument as to why i would take Jose Mourinho over Pep Guardiola while presenting an argument that should probably serve as the blue print to follow when it comes to analyzing the managers under various guidelines.

Style: Jose Mourinho is stereotypically known for being a bit negative when it comes to the style of the football his teams play but I find this to always be a bit of a narrow minded observation. Throughout all the teams he’s gone through he’s taken teams and made them play very organized football, specializing in directness. He’s made champions out of Porto, Chelsea, and Inter Milan by playing football very reminiscent to what that kind of culture demands, it is not too easy to go through various cultures and find the right formulas to win while keeping the fans comfortable in the entertainment level, and the culture similar to what the club demands. Jose Mourinho has managed to make the most productive side in Real Madrid’s history, and the way they play is probably what every fan expects of them. He’s managed to make everyone of his teams play culturally accepted styles, only getting some arduous criticism from romantics who sometimes are too narrow minded to accept some of his antics when it comes to certain formations. It is for the open mindedness though that I think mourinho win this battle. We all know what both coaches believe in, but jose has managed to put aside the taboo non written rule that football should be played a certain way. He manages to adapt to his team’s culture, and win, while once in a while employing tactics which might sacrifice “entertainment” or whatever you’d like to call it, in return for victory. Could pep guardiola go to England, Italy, and various countries, and adapt to those cultures or would he just play with the philosophy he used in the club that was founded on such principles? Mourinho’s style takes it for me because not only does his football deliver on almost all aspects a majority of the time, but it’s proven to be successful and with a good track record. Would a Chelsea, Real Madrid, or Inter Milan, fan base accept a tiki taka culture?, and if pep were to stay close to his roots, would he succeed.? Pep and his football is unproven in what mourinho’s isn’t., and that TO ME means a lot, and is a valid argument imo. To the “romantics” it might seem irrelevant of course…


Track Record: In 12 years with 6 teams Jose Mourinho has accumulated a 69.11 winning percentage winning 20 trophies with 4 different teams in a span of 10 years, going in an unbeaten run at league home games for nine years, and winning every domestic title in each of the 4 countries he’s managed in. Pep Guardiola in 4 years with 1 team managed a 72.47 winning percentage with Fc Barcelona winning 14 titles in the process. To me it seems an amazing feat to go to 4 different nations have success, and keep a level of excellence through out. There is always the ridiculous argument that mourinho always had great teams to win trophies with, but what did pep guardiola have then? That is a ridiculous argument because to start if off, you need a good team in the first place to win any kind of major trophy unless the competition is quite falty or you are just plain lucky. Pep Guardiola inherited a team that can honestly be described at it’s prime, as the greatest set of players in history.. All he had to do was bring the right philosophy to the right club, they were meant for each other, it was an already awesome squad who had come from a euro 2008 triumph, how could they not win under quite near “perfect” circumstances regarding philosophy, and playing style? Not an easy feat to accomplish but not as difficult as going to 4 different nations and winning with different factors at it. Guardiola inherited the most talented squad ever and made it work, mourinho went to porto, Chelsea, and inter and made the right choices and brought trophies to sides who had previously lacked in many areas. In addition @ Real Madrid mourinho has a near 75 percent winning average and in two years has scored more goals than pep did with Barcelona during the same time.. Other than playing in triangles and passing the ball quickly what makes barca’s style better than everybody else’s? Lets bare in mind that at the time that Barcelona dominated the domestic competitions, their closest competition being real Madrid was several pedestals below them in every single way, while the league in it self was not competitive. Jose mourinho’s league titles have all arrived under very different circumstances, more difficult situations. Now in the two years that mourinho and guardiola fought it out they ended up pretty even with a league title each, and a copa del rey title each, while Madrid could have won the cl had It not been for the penalties. Pretty even stints at a versus level the preceding situations had great influence though.

Longetivity: In 12 years mourinho took more or less a year’s sabattical after his departure from Chelsea, while guardiola left after only 4 years.. Did guardiola not have what it takes to last 4 years? How could he replicate mourinho’s logetivity? ( for those stating mou hasnt showed enough long term plans, he only left chelsea because of strong disputes, he intented to stay there until 2010 as he said in an interview, and signed til 2016 with madrid, its a bit of an empty argument also considering pep stayed 4 in a league famous for short manager spells.)

Versus rounds/ Famous tactical plans: During the two years in direct confrontation, their teams came to a record of 5 wins for Barcelona, 4 draws and 2 wins for Madrid, don’t let the 5 wins fool you though, it wasn’t a blow out as both years ended up pretty equally for both teams. Missing shots at goal is a natural thing of football and had Madrid not missed so many opportunities at the bernabeu supercup 1st leg 11/12, and copa del rey away leg 11/12 madrid could have taken both titles in those rather infamous bouts known for madrid’s failure to convert. While the league game @ bernabeu was similar with xavi’s quite lucky goal going in and Ronaldo famously failing to convert, all these matches have been very close. Considering half of the time it was mourinho’s first year with the youngest talented squad in Europe. Compared to a more experienced side in Barcelona. And they have both had their famous arguable mishaps in tactics against each other, with guardiola failing with the ibrahimovic plan against inter, and mourinho’s dangerous plan crumbling after pepe’s sending off. The cl games of 11/12 could also be mentioned but fitness problems in both teams also had to do with it, along with failure to score.


Transfers and player management: This one is quite simple, mourinho has had less high profile failures, and more great purchases than guardiola has. He took guys like essien, carvalho, milito, sneijder, the list goes on and built teams that dominated and prevailed in several aspects. How many high profile successes did guardiola have? He went through the process of paying the 2nd highest amount of money that has even been payed for a player to bring a player that simply would not work in the Barcelona system in a worth while manner in any way? Brought guys whose names sometimes are so difficult that you cant even remember them, and made high profile sour relationships with players like ibrahimovic and bojan for lack of communication, in comparison to mourinho’s “father like” appreciation from dozens of players?

Mourinho wins in experience, he wins in titles, he wins in track record, he wins in longetivit,y, he wins in transfers and player management, and for me he even win in style variety. In versus situations that leaves me with an even statement because of several factors, and if analyzed in an open minded manner you would understand as well.

In what area does pep beat mourinho in? He’s a “nicer” guy? A better example for the children? And he likes to play in systems where you pass the ball in triangles and pass a lot, he didn’t innovate that completely you know? ( i know im over simplyfying the tike taka a bit )

Mourinho wins by taking 4 out of 5 categories and a draw in versus. This year will be an important one for him if he wins the cl or not, it’s a bad start to la liga but it doesn’t make enough of an impact in anyway for anyone dieing for something to pick at.

Pep won with the most talented side ever, with a philosophy ment for each other, while mou did and is doing much more than that. Some like to over glorify the impact of Barcelona but with a still young squad and with new midfield additions real Madrid and Barcelona seem to me like teams who beat everyone and can do the same which is win, against everyone, and now more than ever against each other it’s quite tight.

( someone will blindly bring up the Bayern Madrid clashes…, why blindly? because madrid fell down in a lottery penalty battle in what was a tight 2 leg battle, and sahin was not able to participate in what was mourinho's attempt to solidify the midfield which in the end had great impact, and thus the modric purchase, hes what sahin could have been had the injuries not occured, well the idea anyways,modric still needs time as hes only played two matches in madrid. )

Mourinho wins. ( and yes pep did make some good purchases but mou has made many in various clubs..expecting coentrao to pop up..) For me.. Let the argument begin..

Also try discussing individual matches throughout various years, the big picture still rolls to mourinho imo.

Remember that Pep has only started his coaching career so success and style will hard to be judged as he has only coached one club. The question is whether Pep will succeed in England, Italy etc. we have seen other coaches who play a similar style (Rodgers, AVB) haven't flourished in the EPL. Maybe the same could be done with Pep if he chooses to go to a club like Chelsea or Manchester United.

The Sanchez wrote:Remember that Pep has only started his coaching career so success and style will hard to be judged as he has only coached one club. The question is whether Pep will succeed in England, Italy etc. we have seen other coaches who play a similar style (Rodgers, AVB) haven't flourished in the EPL. Maybe the same could be done with Pep if he chooses to go to a club like Chelsea or Manchester United.

Its unproven battlefield so i give the nod to mourinho.

Without that evidence he can't prove his way is better than mourinho's either...

You just said similar coaches to pep failed right...well hed have to try and demonstrate, and mou has done so for a very long time and succeeded and hence i go with his proven formula along with the many other arguments.

This argument has always been here, if anything then this would be a default for mou when it comes to style, experience, and philosophy, because you cant say pep has proven to do it in a place that wasnt already pleading to be run the way he ran it. The formula is now well known and vilanova seems to have a good grasp.

If he goes to a high profile club like chelsea or manchester united he'd have to succesfully mold the squad into having players of that type, and convince the clubs and their foundations..

Have you seen how united and chelsea play culturally? Would he be allowed and able to just get there and try to tiki taka england?

He'd have to change the culture of clubs that have played a pretty similar style for longer than hes lived.Quite a task.

Not due to bias but I'm going to base this on the three years each served in Spain because I hate the argument of "what if Pep fails in EPL/Seria A etc", Though few would say "well Pep inherited a team with super stars" I believe the same could be said about Madrid.
Peps first year was worth drooling over and adapted very well as for Mourinho maybe his team peaked higher but took longer to peak.
Also Pep is more of a gentlemen compared to Mourinho's asshole attitude so that's just a bonus.

Donuts wrote:Not due to bias but I'm going to base this on the three years each served in Spain because I hate the argument of "what if Pep fails in EPL/Seria A etc", Though few would say "well Pep inherited a team with super stars" I believe the same could be said about Madrid.
Peps first year was worth drooling over and adapted very well as for Mourinho maybe his team peaked higher but took longer to peak.
Also Pep is more of a gentlemen compared to Mourinho's asshole attitude so that's just a bonus.

Well that's your opinion and i respect it, as i said in the intro some of us even base our opinion on their personal attitudes, or atleast what we do get to see.

I love mourinho's attitude, so thats a bonus for me. I like how he thinks about winning. We have different guidelines in that area you see, but that can become an irrelevant factor to many regarding whether ones an asshole or not specially considering mou's success and how the players he's coached and the fan bases of those club for the majority wish he never left.

The argument about pep's ability to adjust is a pretty sound one, he got a team with xavi, iniesta, MESSI, they were meant for one another, but the variety is what matters, mou's done more or less what pep's done in winning with more than 1 club whilst adapting. Pep just got there in the perfect situation for both. Barca's squad had won the cl in 2006 with the very core players and a euro 2008, mourinho had a pretty young squad with new additions like di maria, ozil, a rejuvenized benzema, khedira, new marcelo if you will, and an aging carvalho which did very well.

It wasnt until the second year where they hit another level, and we are still improving with options like modric which as i explained, sahin was supposed to be an option for.


Like i said, you cant win league or champions league without a good team...

also about the club's status after mourinho leaves, if mourinho had intended to stay at inter he would have adapted, like he did with chelsea, he left them with a long lasting squad, porto as a club had no chance of retaining anybody if he didnt stay..even then.

I don't think Mourinho plays a style the Real Madrid fans want.

Also Guardiola has won a lot of trophies while playing an attractive style.

Mourinho stands alone as the best manager in the world, Guardiola is a brilliant manager but Mourinho is genuinely someone special, he might go down as the best ever if he keeps going as he is going.

Agree that Mourinho is the proven one.. The ability to adapt with various teams and to change tactics according to the team is something unique..
But i hate him because of his offfield antiques and proud boastful nature..
I go for Guardiola as i love his philosophy and personality.. Also because my favourite teams are Arsenal, Dortmund and Barca.. So the playing style has a huge effect on the reputation of the manager..