I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the points totals. It doesn't matter if you finish on 50 or 100 points, what matters is where you finish and how far off the other teams you were. Winning the league on 72 points is better than finishing 3rd on 81 in a different season. Bayern weren't great and Dortmund capitalised. I'm not sure what's so unreasonable about that statement. It doesn't matter how many points Dortmund had in those seasons, just that they won.
Weird thing to bring up considering it hasn't and won't happen, but yeah, if Ranieri lost the CL final with Leicester whilst their league form remained as it has been before tonight then I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to downplay the apparent achievement of losing a cup final, CL or not, when he'd have taken the league champions to relegation whilst doing so. Martinez's FA Cup with Wigan is tainted by their league relegation and he actually won the thing.
Agreed. The total points in a season is nothing compared to your place in the table come May.
It would have been an achievement to lead Leicester to a CL final, but of course a club has been mismanaged if they win a cup or appear in a final but get relegated. I've heard from quite a few Wigan Athletic fans who would've swapped the FA Cup for 17th place that season, and many who are obviously happy with the cup but are angry with Martinez' management leading them into the mess they are in now.
I only brought up Hodgson's cup run with Fulham in response to Klopper saying he had nothing on his CV. I wouldn't give a toss, ordinarily, but that's precisely the sort of thing they'd have looked at when hiring him. My main point was that he was a very experienced manager who'd done a decent enough job with a Premier League club, and whilst I don't believe he'd have been pushing for titles or even really threatening top 4, I think he'd have at least equalled Dalglish's 8th place if he'd been given some money to spend. Calling him out as absolutely the worst manager just smacks me as being a bit harsh given he was never given a chance.
Moyes spent near £70 million to take United from champions to 7th. Hodgson was tasked with rebuilding and rejuvenating a free-falling Liverpool with less than £25 million in a summer where they sold Mascherano and ended up making a net profit off transfers by the end of the window, then sacked just a few months later.
I agree that the Liverpool board probably saw Hodgson more as a safe pair of hands to see them through troubled times than the man to storm them back into the European elite. I've just had a look at their squad from that year and my God it was awful, worse than I remembered it being in truth. You're right to point out that Hodgson wasn't backed in the summer transfer window and he lost Macherano (with Torres following in January after having been injured).
However the calibre of signings he made (Konchesky, Jovanović, Poulsen, Jones, Cole) and the dire football and results are things he has to carry the can for, harsh though it may seem given the circumstances. He was doubtlessly dealt a shittier hand at Liverpool than Moyes was here, but the reason I see a valid comparison between the two was the abject hopelessness their tenures pervaded through the two clubs. It wasn't just that things were bad, it was that both sets of fans knew nothing was going to get better until the bosses went.
On topic I don't see anything like that happening to Klopp. Liverpool fans are concerned at Klopp's lack of plan B, him persisting with players who have either not been good enough (Can in particular) or are out of position (Firminho, Milner, Lucas) and compounding this by failing to add to his squad in January. However they back him: they'd much rather have a clear-out of the squad than lose Klopp (and I don't blame them).