CL semi final team was mediocre?
Guardiola vs Klopp
- Thread starter Infordin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are joined by special guest Anders (@Lyng) to celebrate the news that ETH is staying put! They also talk about the Euros so far, with special attention on England, Scotland and Denmark. They then finish with some transfer talk and the potential comings and outgoings at Old Trafford.
We are comparing managers, not players. We don't get to see a manager on the pitch.
But Martinez won an FA cup with Wigan, did he do a better job than the one Klopp is currently doing at Liverpool?
Of course they were a world class side. If anything it's a myth that they finished 3rd and were therefore wank and then Pep came and turned a Sevilla-esque club into stardom. On matchday 32 Barca were still 2nd in the table, only 9 points adrift from the league winners and went out in the CL semis to a Paul Scholes wonder strike. Madrid in recent years had much bigger point gaps to Barcelona before even Christmas. That doesn't make Madrid not world class in recent years.
A team that had been in steady decline for years as shown in their league performances.
Question is would pep won the ssme if he's given time and money equal to what klopp won with liverpool?
Would klopp won the treble with that barca team?
Would klopp won the treble with that barca team?
Mediocre or average is extreme. World class is extreme.They were a good team in need to be to be freshened- same as current Madrid.
Hardly anyone of this squad was considered truly world class. Messi was a star in the making, Xavi and Iniesta had just started gettimg lime light, Pique, Busquets, Toure etc. weren't big names whatsoever. Nobody would've said that this team will become history's greatest.
Truth is, Pep creates the best teams. Many managers rely on individual quality to drag them above the line. Pep creates a collective platform on which individuals look even greater than they already are. Klopp does that, too, but not to the same extent.
6. Pep is better than Klopp b/c he has more trophies
6. A subjective opinion based on an incomplete comparison
Thank you for the elementary logic lesson, but what you posted doesn't really prove anything. Ignoring a manager's resources and looking only at trophies is a foolish place to start a comparison from.
Impossible to answer really. Amount of trophies doesn't necessarily say who is the better manager. Pep has had less of a challenge that's for sure, but that still doesn't give the answer.
The only answer I can give I think, is that Klopp has done the more impressive feat with Liverpool, as a whole.
The only answer I can give I think, is that Klopp has done the more impressive feat with Liverpool, as a whole.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/may/08/barcelona.realmadrid
World class side indeed. Unless the writer of that article was just embellishing.
Did you see Schalke in 2010-11? Chelsea in 2011-12 (that beat Heynekes' Bayern)?
Yes, mediocre sides get far in cup competitions sometimes. Cup competition is more volatile, and taking them as a sure measure of quality is a fools errand.
Personally, Klopp could have lost the final to Pochettino and this thread would still be valid, but let's be honest. No one is making a Poch vs Pep thread anytime soon. If Spurs won we wouldn't see this thread made. Which shows how fickle the criteria is.
Both exceptional managers, to the point where I don't see any worth in claiming one is better or worse than the other. Both have their own styles, strengths and weaknesses and both have achieved things which, on paper, you'd say the other would have struggled to emulate.
Eh? Klopp can’t balance the league and the CL but Poccetino can? How is not winning the league or the Champions League the same as only winning the league?
Feel like Klopp has the 'better' achievements for me. What he did with Dortmund was fantastic - let's not forget he also got them to them CL final, only to lose to Bayern.
Until Pep takes on a role that isn't ready made/the path of least resistance I think the argument that will always count against him is where is his Mourinho (Porto/Inter), Klopp (Dortumund/Liverpool) type achievements, even the likes of Jardim (Monaco), Ranieri (Leicester), Simeone (Atleti) have these great underdog wins where they have beaten the sugar daddy clubs or the established elite. Had Pep moved to City straight after Barcelona, he'd have a great shout at this but he waited because he didn't fancy it and, by all accounts, had the team pre made for him on arrival. Take nothing away from his achievements but it's a just a fact that he doesn't take on anything with any semblance of risk (so far).
Until Pep takes on a role that isn't ready made/the path of least resistance I think the argument that will always count against him is where is his Mourinho (Porto/Inter), Klopp (Dortumund/Liverpool) type achievements, even the likes of Jardim (Monaco), Ranieri (Leicester), Simeone (Atleti) have these great underdog wins where they have beaten the sugar daddy clubs or the established elite. Had Pep moved to City straight after Barcelona, he'd have a great shout at this but he waited because he didn't fancy it and, by all accounts, had the team pre made for him on arrival. Take nothing away from his achievements but it's a just a fact that he doesn't take on anything with any semblance of risk (so far).
Both are fantastic in what they do and achieve but Guardiola will be seen as the greater manager because of Barca 09-11, arguably the best club team ever. Think by the time Guardiola retires he will have won most trophies in history, and with a remarkable style of play at that. Arrigo Sacchi won a fraction of Guardiola's trophies but is widely regarded as one of the very best managers. And his Milan had all-time greats in their ranks, not mere mortals.
Doing wonders with lesser players is highly admirable but won't put you in the conversation of the greatest ever. Still, what Klopp is achieving with Liverpool is amaizing. Winning 97 pts with this squad is arguably a greater achievement in itself than winning the CL. Let's see whether Liverpool will be able to go to 95-97 pts next season. It's not clear that they can replicate last season and weren't a bit lucky to amass so many points.
If you want a team for the ages, the stuff of dreams and legends like Barca 09-11, you choose Guardiola. If you don't have particularly great players but want to win the biggest trophies, you go with Klopp.
Doing wonders with lesser players is highly admirable but won't put you in the conversation of the greatest ever. Still, what Klopp is achieving with Liverpool is amaizing. Winning 97 pts with this squad is arguably a greater achievement in itself than winning the CL. Let's see whether Liverpool will be able to go to 95-97 pts next season. It's not clear that they can replicate last season and weren't a bit lucky to amass so many points.
If you want a team for the ages, the stuff of dreams and legends like Barca 09-11, you choose Guardiola. If you don't have particularly great players but want to win the biggest trophies, you go with Klopp.
How can you put the 97 pts to klopps credit when at the very same year pep guardiola amass 98 pts?
You can make this argument if it's a different year
A trophy is a trophy. What's next? Wenger is better than ferguson becauer he did it with worse squad? This doing it with smaller budget needs to die, we're talking about goat, not perspective.
That's a point I'm struggling with. Are we elevating Wenger above Mourinho because of what he accomplished during that stretch of trophyless top 4 finishes with bare spend?
I don't think those in Klopp's corner are nuanced enough to argue this, because otherwise, would this thread have been made if Pochettino won the final?
Because City have more options for the attacking phase of the game. Imagine you were told 2 years ago that Liverpool were going to win 97 pts with Henderson, Milner and Wijnaldum as their main midifielders. Would have bee perceived as a silly joke. Liverpool have a top squad but perhaps not close to City's quality wise. Next season will be important for Klopp's legacy. If they fail to challenge City for the title, then last season might be seen as anomalous and lucky. Then you'll be right.
1. I've never stated otherwise
2. I've stated in my own post that he spent 450m. It's just not the same given the squad quality that was present at both clubs
3. Well, he could have bought a 7m left back from a relegated side, promoted a youth level right back and center back to play next to Kompany or (one of) his 65m center backs.
I feel like Pep has exceeded expectations even with all the spending he did, but people have forgotten about that; he wasn't expected to dominate English footie to this level. I remember people thinking that what Conte did was remarkable, and Pep surpassed even him in terms of surprising the EPL.
I think that needs to be taken into context when people talk about Klopp exceeding expectations. Pep did the same thing, just, it's been a season so people are getting used to it whereas Klopp's achievement is fresh in everyone's minds.
Lastly, Klopp usually only competes on maximum two fronts (league and one cup), so he is untested in other areas in which Guardiola has to be proficient in order to compete for everything.
I think that needs to be taken into context when people talk about Klopp exceeding expectations. Pep did the same thing, just, it's been a season so people are getting used to it whereas Klopp's achievement is fresh in everyone's minds.
Lastly, Klopp usually only competes on maximum two fronts (league and one cup), so he is untested in other areas in which Guardiola has to be proficient in order to compete for everything.
Last edited:
Did you read the article you linked?
A shit season does not equal a shit team. They were world class of course, Messi was compared to Maradona since age 17. Real Madrid had a record transfer fee (at the time) prepared for young Iniesta who refused. Xavi was Man of the Tournament in 2008 Euro Cup.
It's impossible to compare achievements like this as in a lot of cases it's an instance of the right man for the job. When Leicester won the league, Ranieri was the perfect manager for them. Most likely, they could have had anyone else in the world and not won the league that season. I don't believe Guardiola could have gone to Inter and done what Mourinho did, and likewise Mourinho could not have gone to Barcelona and done what Pep did. There are scenarios where a club would be likely be better off with someone like Neil Warnock managing them than someone like Pep, Klopp or Pochettino.
'Better' is a bit of a vague word that cannot exactly be absolutely quantified in many ways in terms of managerial skills. It is not exactly outrageous though nor totally subjective to say that Pep is better than Klopp, or that Klopp should not be rated higher than Pep. Afterall Pep comprehensively betters him in the most relevant and tangible thing for managers - trophies, and you can't exactly play the 'style of football' card in favour of Klopp either.
Obviously, there's that little matter of context, and that is why Poch, Klopp, Pep, Emery can all be regarded as top managers even though some have never won a trophy. The highest rated managers are usually the most successful ones though, and the vast difference between the achievement of Klopp and Pep means that the one with less should not really be rated higher than the one with more. Until Klopp actually outdos Pep in that department, then he really shouldn't be rated higher. Poch has done really well competing against teams that spend much more than him, Emery won three consecutive UELs with the not-so-almightly Sevilla, but there's a reason both cannot be placed above someone like Klopp in the EPL who does more while spending more, because there are levels to everything.
Klopp is a top manager, but no amount of context would place him ahead of Pep with the vast difference in amount of trophies and quantifiable achievements between them.
I was referring to his time at Dortmund, when he had limited resources like Pochettino had at Spurs. At Dortmund, when he won the league, he did poorly in the champions league and when he got in the finals of the champions league, he couldn’t win the league. That is with a league that is not as competitive as the premier league. Pochettino on the other hand managed to get top four and a champions league final with a net spend less than that of Dortmund at the time. Which is a remarkable achievement as the premier league is way more competitive than the Bundesliga. This season after after Klopp broke the world record for a center back and keeper, it is no surprise that he was able to balance both the league and cpl with such a significant amount of money spent. Pochettino should have won the finals as his team was more dominant, however the difference was the quality of players on the pitch.
There comes a point where it's all relative.
Liverpool spent 70 million on their keeper ffs.
For me they are in the same bracket, I think that if you swapped managers, they would have the same respective results.
Liverpool spent 7 million on their LB ffs.
No chance. You put them in charge from the start of their tenures klopp would be a success at city pep wouldnt at liverpool. Hed swap mignolet for bravo and after a wank season he wouldnt be able to go casually get a new keeper for 40 mil or a billion 50 mil fullbacks.
Maybe he would just spend a world record for a goalkeeper instead.
Poor Pep, no talent on this team. Just 20 year old Messi.
Yes. I don't think you read it. That line you took out of context. Here's a better quote from that.
Man City signed theirs for 1.7 million.
What's your point? Mine was that there's a level where how big a budget a team has is relatively meaningless. Liverpool's budget allowed them to go out and spend 70 million on Alisson and 75 million on van Dijk. It's never held them back and has allowed them to go out and spend all sorts of money on world class players.
Pep is well on his way to being regarded as one of the very best 3 managers in history (if not the best). Klopp is some way behind on that front.
This dude has to be trolling.
So it was pep fault he got a better team?
Where does this end? Ronaldo isnt as good as henderson because he plays for madrid? We cant always move the goalpost or we'll soon end up with ranieri as the best of all time because he did it with Leicester
Off course we never know. Messi might slip due to klopps jinx and we won the final.
Bottom line is. Trophy counts is what matters in the end. Sorry but there's no other way. You can't say schumacher isnt the goat because he drives a faster car. Where does it end?
10+ titles 1 treble vs 3 titels 1 cl is too far for sentimentality to matters.
When it comes to alex ferguson vs pep you can make a case for sentimentality, not klopp vs pep
This is a pointless question for me. Just as pointless as the individual honours. Football is a teamsport consisting of a squad and a manager.
I agree with this. No amount of context that could be applied would put Klopp ahead of Pep.
Guardiola has won 27 trophies, 17 majors.
Klopp has won 6 trophies, 4 majors.
Simeone on another hand has won 9 trophies, 6 majors. Would you put him ahead of Mourinho who has 25 trophies, 20 majors? Afterall, both are not exactly known for their swashbuckling footballing, but Mourinho outspent everyone at Chelsea, and walked into Real Madrid and Manchester United jobs? That is not how it works. Mourinho and Guardiola are far more successful managers, so they are easily above the other two.
feck the both of them, especially Klopp. I mean what kind of weirdo doesn't like Disneyland?