And Pogba thinks he's got it bad ..twitter.com/SambaRole/status/1048998891679449089?s=19
lol at Klopp....is that Shaqiri he's screaming at again in the end?
Jurgen Klopp Sack Watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Inter was a way better and bigger team at the time. Bayern was in a slump in the late 00s and couldn't compete in Europe until that 2010 for quite a few years.
So why hasn't he turned you into European winners with a massive budget? Why didn't he turn Real Madrid into European winners whilst he was there? They won it 4 times AFTER he left. Mourinho works well with a certain type of player which should be obvious now after his tenure at United.
So many contradictions, if Klopp isn't close to the level of Mourinho one of the best coaches whichever existed (your words), why would you want to replace him with "overrated Klopp?
And why are you and @Bola turning this into a Klopp vs Mourinho thread?
Contradictions? If you read exactly, there are no contradictions. Klopp would suit perfect for the United job, as we are right now not even close to be in the top tier of european clubs. He could improve our squad in 2 or 3 years a lot and we would be closer to this top tier again. But even when Klopp is better at rebuilding a side than Mourinho, Mourinho is one of the most successful coaches in history. Right now the only active coaches who are arguably as successful as him are Pep (a genius) and Ancelotti (the king of Cups). So, i don't understand how anyone can compare Klopp to Mourinho. Just because he plays some nice football and obviously understands the game and is a good coach, he isn't one of the best coaches ever. Alone his record in finals is embarrassing (and his reactions,
Why Klopp vs Mou? I just wanted to give my opinion as i read here that some people compare them.
You said Klopp works best when there's no pressure to win things? Are you saying there's no pressure to win things at United? Really?
No one said Klopp is one of the best coaches ever, i'm not sure who you're actually arguing with. The Klopp vs Mourinho discussions was started by a United fan as a way to downplay Klopps achievements.
Alright then let me ask you this, when do you think Klopp should win the league? City aren't going to get any weaker, they never lose their best players and they have one of the best managers in world football. Should every other club in the league resign themselves to never winning the league for the foreseeable future because City are a behemoth?
When Wenger took over Arsenal, United were the institution and continued to be that, but he still managed to win three league titles when United were at their best. Having a strong rival isn't an excuse for not winning the league.
I'm not suggesting you turn on Klopp I'm just saying that this is a great chance for Liverpool. The problem with building for the future is that you have to balance it with the present and keep in mind one simple fact of football.
Footballers are by and large mercenaries. Its alright for the manager, owner and fans to buy into the project. What happens when your best players get tired of being bridesmaids?
I'm not being salty but just speaking from experience. I thought we were building something great with Fabregas, Nasri, Van Persie and Wilshere around 2011. Two years later three of them had left and Wilshere had taken up permanent residence in the physio room
I could be wrong though, Liverpool's players could have undying loyalty to Klopp and his project and want to see it through to the very end.
My point of some concern for Liverpool fans is Klopp's acceptance of a mediocre midfield. He seems as averse of clinical dribbling players like Jose and Rafa Benitez- they all seem to love workhorses and I guess if you have an underwhelming Naby Keita in tow, then you stick with the Hendersons and Milners. If Klopp had a David Silva type, he could have a shout at the league even, but Hendo/Milner/Wijnaldum, etc, wil make sure you are not relegated
That's a bold statement given Liverpool's failure to win a trophy in what feels like an eternity.
Are basing this on finishing runners-up to Real in last seasons CL?
Dortmund, Arsenal, Tottenham, perhaps even Monaco and Napoli, all top sides which haven't won a lot recently bar the odd trophy here and there. I'd say right now, around 5 teams in Europe would be (clear) favourites against us in a two-leg round, which definitely means we're one of the top sides in Europe (maybe even less given the respective state of Bayern and Real at the moment, and Pep/City's inability to dismantle us). You have Atlético, Real and Juventus which are superior teams and would be matchup nightmares for us, but other than those it's fair game between a lot of teams. We've just drawn against Chelsea and beat PSG at full strength, both clubs amongst Europe's elite.
Yes, we haven't won anything for what feels like an eternity - the post you're replying to said we've tranformed into one which implies that we weren't before, which is why we haven't won something (significant) for so long. We've had three shots at a trophy and two shots at a European trophy since Klopp arrived here exactly three years ago, which is a sign of progress and a sign that we're again close to Europe's elite. If you consistently get to the latter stages of tournaments, it's bound to happen sooner or later.
Any comparison between Klopp and Mourinho in terms of success on the pitch, i.e winning domestic titles and cup competitions would be an extremely one-sided argument.
Jose is several levels ahead of his rival at this stage in their respective careers. In order for Klopp to alter this reality, he will have to step out of his comfort zone and begin to accumulate a whole host of trophies, both domestically and on the European stage, at multiple clubs across Europe.
They dismantled you 5:0 not long ago and might have dismantled you again in April if the referee didn't help you in the second leg. Not to mention the referee helped you in the first leg too.
Liverpool are top 8 right now. Could beat anyone and lose from anyone among the top clubs. Think most of those top clubs have better quality on the becnh though.
Yes but the wind was against us on both nights so it evened out in the end.
Agreed - top 8 is definitely one of the top sides in Europe for me though, depends on your interpretation I guess.
His post directly implied that Liverpool were now one of Europe's top sides. I'm trying to figure out how that is even remotely possible given the fact that Liverpool haven't won a trophy in years.
Win something, then we can talk about where Liverpool are at.
You don't need to win something to be considered one of the best teams in Europe, in my opinion. One CL trophy more or less in our trophy cabinet would not change anything about our current quality, and finals are decided in the margins anyway.
If you disagree with that, that's completely fine.
That's exactly what a supporter of a club that does not win trophies, but still wishes to be recognized among the European elite, would say.
As long as we remain around this level then I'll be happy, and trophies will begin to arrive. City won't keep up this level forever, but for the next year or two maybe.
Saw him being linked with Real in the rumour mill. Obviously, it's just a rumour so I'm talking hypothetically but it would be interesting to see how the Real fans put up with his antics. Could you imagine him leading the players in applause of the fans after a 2-2 home draw with Eibar?
We are currently a top 10 team in Europe, just like we were last year. That makes us one of the top sides in Europe, which is what the post you quoted said. Not sure what's hard to understand here. United for example is currently not a top 10 side in Europe, and a Europa League win two seasons ago does not change that.
This isn't a guarantee.
Also City might drop a level but at the same time Chelsea, United or Arsenal could all rise. Hell maybe even Spurs (I hope not). Simultaneously Liverpool could drop. If you told anyone after the invincible season that Arsenal would only win an FA Cup in the next ten years, you would have been laughed out of the room.
But if you're happy just being around the table and think Liverpool will be able to maintain this level, fair enough. Neither of us know the future.
Bloody hell, one minute we're being told we're downplaying our side, the next, we're being told that it's too early to call ourselves challengers. Of course we challengers. That doesn't mean we'll win it, just that we'll put up a challenge like we are at the moment. I'd have Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs as challengers right now as well. It doesn't mean that we'll continue to challenge throughout the season (I expect Spurs' lack of signings to hurt them later in the season) but right now, all four teams have to be considered as challengers to City's crown
I'm not the one making a comparison, it's 2 United fans who started comparing Mourinho to Klopp. I was replying to a United fan who stated Klopp was overrated and Mourinho was one of the best mangers who has ever existed, yet he wanted Klopp to replace Mourinho as Klopp excels at places where there's no pressure to win trophies which we both know isn't United.
This always gets taken out of context. A week earlier, Klopp was criticizing Liverpool fans after we went 2-1 down to Palace in the 84th minute. Loads of fans left the ground and Klopp was saying that he felt alone as the crowd had effectively given up.
The following home match against West Brom, the crowd stayed in place and we ended up getting a last minute equalizer.
Klopp leading the players over to the Kop was a show of unity between the players, staff and the fans and every one of us understood that.
Did you apply a criterion before you came to this judgement and if so, would you mind sharing it? I just feel as if you're not being very practical here.
RobinLFC said:
So rather than use a solid criterion to form a fact-based conclusion, you chose instead to go with your gut feeling.
That's cool, man. Just wanted to know
So rather than use a solid criterion to form a fact-based conclusion, you chose instead to go with your gut feeling.
That's cool, man. Just wanted to know
You're the worst.Manchester United - at their best - never achieved 100 points in a league season. Even your 'invincibiles', despite going a full season unbeaten, only achieved 90 points. Using the great, title-winning Arsenal sides only reaffirms how difficult it's going to be to finish ahead of this incredible City team, who probably have the best manager in the world at the helm, backed by a endless pot of cash for top players. That's not us being defeatist, it's us being realistic. We embarked on this season with hope. City set off with expectation. 8 games in, that is still the case. I do agree with you about there being no guarantees about the future. But that's life, & that's football. At this moment in time we're in a pretty good place. If we finish the season with a healthy points total - say late 80's - we'll still be in a good place irrespective of whether or not we win the league. So let me ask you a similar question to the one you asked in your post. Bearing in mind that we only have 2 opportunities throughout the season to affect City's points total. When do you think we should start to crticize Klopp for not winning the league if Man City constantly achieve 90+ points every season ?
Klopp is not averse to dribbling players. Mane, Salah and Firmino are have a dribble in them, as does Lallana. He also did try to get Coutinho to stay, and Coutinho is a dribbling player. I would argue that Liverpool just lost one the best dribbling midfielders in the world in Coutinho, and he is hard to replace like for like. Klopp also tried to buy Fekir (another dribbling player), and the club pulled out due to a so so medical.
And Keita is a dribbling player too, he is just getting used to the PL.
Klopp is not sticking to Hendersons and Milners - he bought Fabinho, Ox and Keita (who will come good - he has not been brilliant, but not terrible either).
Yes, City beat Liverpool 5-0, but 4 goals were conceded after we went down to 10 men. City is the worst team to play against a man down. They are a brilliant team.
If we keep making CL finals we're bound to win one sooner or later
Can't say I'll be rooting for you guys (unless its against Spurs or Chelsea) but I also can't disagree with this point.
When your opponent ups the ante, you go up a level as well. Before Barcelona entered the stratosphere, 80ish points was enough to win La Liga most seasons. In 2007 Real Madrid won it with 76 points. Then Barcelona started getting 85+ points every season like clockwork. What did Madrid do? They improved to that level because that was now the standard. I think one year Madrid got 95+ points and still didn't win the league. Madrid didn't complain and declare that Barcelona were too strong. They kept it up and won La Liga, although they still haven't won it enough for their liking. So to answer your question, if Man City get 95 points then make sure you get 96, you only have 2 opportunities to affect their total but your own total is completely within your control.
If you think Man city are unassailable and just happy to compete, feel free. I won't tell you when to criticize Klopp but I just think this is Liverpool's best shot to win the league since 2014.
I didn't say that City were unassailable, I said that they held all the cards when it comes to winning the league. Do you know why the likes of Barca & Real can 'up the ante' ? It's because they have the allure, & the funds, to attract players that even clubs like Chelsea & United can't attract. So using them as a comparison to Liverpool is ridiculous. Especially considering we've lost great players like Suarez, Coutinho, Mascherano, Owen, & Mcmanaman to them over the past 15 years or so. So on one hand you're saying that it's difficult to plan for the future because, & I quote, 'Footballers are mercenaries' . & then you say we should go 'up a level' in order to compete. You, an Arsenal fan of all people, should know how difficult it becomes when other clubs start taking your best players off you. Like I say, we have to hope that the current squad we have is good enough to go toe to toe with Man City. But considering they've also added to a squad that walked the league last season, the odds are rightly in favour of the team from the blue half of Manchester. & for us to finish above them this season would mean us going up 2 or 3 levels, not just one. Maybe they'll go a bit further in the CL this season which might take the edge off some of their league performances. That's about as optimistic as I can be at this stage.
I agree that Klopp makes excuses, and sometimes they are just silly. But very few times, he is directly putting the blame on a particular player and managing to upset them, which is what Post-Madrid Mourinho manages to do successfully in Chelsea and now at Man Utd and isolate himself from the players.
I always maintain that Klopp is one-Tier below Guardiola or Prime Mourinho, not only because he won peanuts compared to them but he is also a very reactive manager who sometimes seem clueless in adverse situations. His game-management leaves a lot to be desired.
But the Mourinho you guys have got is nothing but a shadow of himself, who looks disinterested. I think it Real madrid coupled with not getting the job in 2013 at United mentally broke him. He did not want to be at Chelsea, but he ended up there. And his disgruntled manner have continued since compared to the quirky Chelsea 1.0 version.
I'm not comparing Real's resources and pull to Liverpool. I was comparing the circumstances.
Barcelona stepped up a level in the same way Man City have. Real Madrid were Barcelona's challengers, Liverpool aspire to be City's challengers.
Yes footballers are mercenaries, that is why I basically said Liverpool need to up the ante NOW (well in January or next summer if you want to talk transfers) and not sit around and wait for City to drop a level. Why? Because if you don't up the ante now, then other clubs will come and take your best players off you. Its because I'm an Arsenal fan and have seen this happen time and time again to us that I keep on saying its important for Liverpool to do this now. Another year or two without trophies and what will VVD/Salah/Mane say when their agent gets a call from Madrid or PSG?
In modern football, it is very difficult to build for the future because most footballers aren't going to sit around and wait for it. If Klopp can somehow get your best players to stay while finishing second to fourth every year, he is a much better man manager than I'm giving him credit for at the moment.
This is all academic because unless Klopp plans to add in January, all you can do is hope your squad is good enough to overtake City. I don't mean to take away from that hope in anyway, its just that I've sat through these types of seasons as an Arsenal fan. Ones where you hope that you team will win the league but think even if you don't, your team will be stronger next season and the one after that. Only to watch that team be dismantled, when it could have all been avoided if Wenger had strengthened said team when it was at its best.
I think people tend not to consider what Klopp has been up against in his career. He won in Germany with Dortmund in a one team league, and during his time managed to humiliate a few top European sides. However, Bayern Munich was not above poaching his best players (Lewandowski, Hummels, Gotze) to make the task harder.
In England, he has to contend with 5 of the 10 richest teams in the world (excluding Liverpool) (Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs). Winning the PL is hard. Even Mourinho made hard work of winning La Liga in a two league team, and was beaten by Atletico once.
Guardiola is an excellent manager, but he has managed:
- A team with Messi
- Far and away the richest team in Germany
- Manchester City (where he has outspent every manager in the Premier League since his arrival)
Mourinho's record speaks for itself, but other than his last Chelsea stint, he has pretty much had the biggest spending team in the league when he won it - and he spent a pretty penny at Chelsea too last time around.
I would say Pep is one of the worst top level managers when it comes to active game management. That's always been his weakness and it was exposed on occassions at Bayern and has been at City (first season and then in his losses to Liverpool). He either has his team playing at an unbelievably high level, if he has all the right ingredients, or playing subpar with the odd embarrasing performances if not having the right players. He has only one way of playing and if he doesn't have the right players to follow that philosophy his team will play poorly, he can't adapt to the players he has. To his credit though, in last week's match vs Liverpool he finally realized he can't play his way and adapted to play more defensive. It worked well so lets see if he can continue to follow that when he needs to.
Klopp is above Pep in game management because his team can adapt to matches against better opponents, where they sit back and counter rather than looking to attack constantly, as they do against weaker sides. That was why Klopp had a really good record against big teams at Dortmund and has an impressive record for Liverpool currently.
Mourinho though, at his peak, was well above both. His strength was tactically outplaying his opponent, though i feel that did fall a bit since he went to Madrid and was forced to play a more attacking style in some big games (bar v Barca where Madrid fans would accept a win at all costs), which he may not have preferred.
Klopp is above Pep in game management because his team can adapt to matches against better opponents, where they sit back and counter rather than looking to attack constantly, as they do against weaker sides. That was why Klopp had a really good record against big teams at Dortmund and has an impressive record for Liverpool currently.
Mourinho though, at his peak, was well above both. His strength was tactically outplaying his opponent, though i feel that did fall a bit since he went to Madrid and was forced to play a more attacking style in some big games (bar v Barca where Madrid fans would accept a win at all costs), which he may not have preferred.
Jose is, or at least was, a brilliant coach too, and if anything he's also an exception to the rule. If I wanted to use selective analysis to belittle Mourinho I would probably be mentioning things like him having to face Deportivo without Andrade and Monaco in the last rounds of his first Champions League. I would be also saying that Inter from 8 years ago were a top side which aspired to win everything since the first day. It doesn't make sense because I still think his was an extraordinary task, and that's why he started to coach bigger clubs afterwards.
The main point I'm trying to make is that Klopp has very much improved teams and performed very well in rather difficult situations, and that at times winning or not is a matter of small details, especially if the rivals to beat are 2013 Bayern or a still extremely strong Real Madrid. (Sevilla is perhaps a different story but they were still very experienced in Europa League anyway, so a very difficult situation)