Klopp to leave Liverpool at the end of the season

It’s very hard to argue against Pep but if I was given the choice between Klopp and Pep to be our manager following Fergie I’d genuinely choose Klopp. I much prefer his style of play and always thought his Dortmund were a natural evolution of how Sir Alex played. Wanted him at the time, was devastated he went to Liverpool and I’m very happy he’s fecking off - hopefully it’ll be without another title.
 
Did Fergie not have to deal with the exact same thing with Chelsea?

The Klopp worshippers will conveniently forget this fact. If you are a good enough team, you will win but apparently 2nd place and points tally are an achievement. :nervous:
 
No chance, Pep has never taken a challenge quite like Liverpool or Dortmund and would need a blank chequebook to transcend a team.

Theres no chance Pep has that defensive crisis Klopp had a few years ago and sticks around after being asked to dumpster dive for reinforcements.
So what? He's a better coach and has his teams playing a far more dominant style of football. He elevates players just like Klopp does. You think City would be anywhere near this level of ruthless consistency without him? No chance. Also, Pep mops up all the trophies, where as Klopp occasionally picks up the left overs. Maybe it's the cool thing to rate Klopp higher because he started from a lower level, but he simply isn't as good.
 
And also lost a league title to this city..

You didn't lose a league title to this City. You lost to Mancini's City.

Ferguson was swatted every time he came up against Pep. I have no doubt he'd have snatched a league or two if he was competing with Pep, but the history says he was tactically outmatched so the idea that he'd naturally best him is just pure supposition.
 
It is really hard to argue against Pep.
Only 3 seasons since starting his managerial career he hasn‘t won the league. And in these 3 seasons his rivals had to play record seasons to win the title over him. Real 100pts, Liverpool 97 pts.

One big argument against Pep is obv. that he is a cheating cnut.
There's no argument in my opinion. Winning matters.
 
So what? He's a better coach and has his teams playing a far more dominant style of football. He elevates players just like Klopp does. You think City would be anywhere near this level of ruthless consistency without him? No chance. Also, Pep mops up all the trophies, where as Klopp occasionally picks up the left overs. Maybe it's the cool thing to rate Klopp higher because he started from a lower level, but he simply isn't as good.
The man has the luxury of a blank chequebook and you're wondering how that's relevant to his sides always dominating sides? Think this one through in your head.

Klopp is better because he can take on a bigger challenge and not cheat in the process of winning every available cup. Not least win the grandest prize of them all in the fraction of the time and with a fraction of the money needed for Pep and city.
 
The Klopp worshippers will conveniently forget this fact. If you are a good enough team, you will win but apparently 2nd place and points tally are an achievement. :nervous:

City did take everything to another level, though, including the amount of points they won leagues with. They left very little room for error.
 
City did take everything to another level, though, including the amount of points they won leagues with. They left very little room for error.
It's a hilarious argument from those trying to discredit his work really. To go toe to toe with a side blatantly cheating and spending crazy sums and fall ever so slightly short on two occasions whilst pipping them on another is actually pretty amazing.
 
City did take everything to another level, though, including the amount of points they won leagues with. They left very little room for error.

Yes, and thus, Klopp wasn't good enough to rise to that challenge.
 
And also lost a league title to this city..

He lost a league title to this City in its infancy.

City are now viewed as an actual big club by players but back then joining them was still seen as a somehwat mercenary move.

Their 2012 squad, while good, cannot be compared to the recent ones in terms of quality and depth. They kept getting better and better, culminating with the signing of Haaland.
 
It's a hilarious argument from those trying to discredit his work really. To go toe to toe with a side blatantly cheating and spending crazy sums and fall ever so slightly short on two occasions whilst pipping them on another is actually pretty amazing.

Yep, it is. I'm really staggered at some of the comments here. I know it's Liverpool and all, but credit where credit's due.
 
It's a hilarious argument from those trying to discredit his work really. To go toe to toe with a side blatantly cheating and spending crazy sums and fall ever so slightly short on two occasions whilst pipping them on another is actually pretty amazing.

Yes, Klopp deserves a gold star for that, while, Pep can celebrate his trophies.
 
The man has the luxury of a blank chequebook and you're wondering how that's relevant to his sides always dominating sides? Think this one through in your head.

Klopp is better because he can take on a bigger challenge and not cheat in the process of winning every available cup. Not least win the grandest prize of them all in the fraction of the time and with a fraction of the money needed for Pep and city.
Pep dominates sides because he's a brilliant coach who knows how to implement a dominant style of football. If you are going to enable him to spend a lot of money too, then you're simply not going to be able to stop him. Not on a consistent basis anyway.

Klopp has given it a good go and enjoyed some success, but he isn't as good. I'm sure if he was at City, he would have won more. However, his City wouldn't have been as good as Pep's City because he cannot coach as dominant a brand of football. Many prefer Klopp's style and the reason for that is because ultimately it is flawed. Pep's style is perfection and that leaves some people feeling bored.
 
Not quite what I was eluding to. Liverpool were broadly a nothing club with a fluke Champions league in 2005 before him. He went in, spent a fraction of what Pep did (?) and won the CL in less time, whilst also winning their first ever PL. He also pushed Pep all the way despite having fewer resources 3 times. It's not just about what he won, but how he had Liverpool playing and how efficient he was. The points tally even in the seasons he came just short was insane.

He rebuilt the squad which was much needed after last year and would be unbeaten if not for that dubious Spurs loss earlier this season. All whilst grappling big personal losses.

So yeah, he's pretty good. I regard him as the best manager in the world and am quite sure Pep wouldn't achieve the same at Liverpool if the money hose were swapped. I don't think Klopp is overrated.
The love in for Klopp and Liverpool on here by a few of you is pathetic . Feck off to RAWK
 
So did that Chelsea side in 05/06, and guess who got the better of them in the end?

Chelsea took it to another level, and then City took it to yet another level - one that's almost impossible to match. The fact that Klopp matched it is nearly a football miracle.
 
Pep dominates sides because he's a brilliant coach who knows how to implement a dominant style of football. If you are going to enable him to spend a lot of money too, then you're simply not going to be able to stop him. Not on a consistent basis anyway.

You are not being able to stop sides with superior players on a consistent basis, that is why clubs try to, you know, sign good players.

It is also funny that you say that, as he has a history of being stopped consistently by inferior sides in the CL. I cannot imagine the likes of Real from the mid 2010s, United from the late 00s for Bayern from the early 2010s going out in two-legged ties to the likes of Tottenham or Monaco. Or being eliminated by Lyon.
 
The love in for Klopp and Liverpool on here by a few of you is pathetic . Feck off to RAWK

So a United fan cannot appreciate the ability and achievements of Liverpool and their manager?

Right, Klopp is crap, his football is shite and his trophies are all about luck. Is that better?
 
Pep dominates sides because he's a brilliant coach who knows how to implement a dominant style of football. If you are going to enable him to spend a lot of money too, then you're simply not going to be able to stop him. Not on a consistent basis anyway.

Klopp has given it a good go and enjoyed some success, but he isn't as good. I'm sure if he was at City, he would have won more. However, his City wouldn't have been as good as Pep's City because he cannot coach as dominant a brand of football. Many prefer Klopp's style and the reason for that is because ultimately it is flawed. Pep's style is perfection and that leaves some people feeling bored.
What is this revisionism? Klopp played the best football in the league the years he came 2nd and the year he came 1st. Liverpool were far more enjoyable to watch when he hit his prime gear than city were.

His style is more direct and has more risk than Pep, and that's by design. Pep is more of a possession based manager, by design. When it came to more enjoyable football, prime Klopp is certainly more entertaining.
 
His points tallies don't though. My argument is why he's the best manager in the world. Not whether he could have won more during his time at Liverpool. They are mutually exclusive given he was the only manager to consistently go toe to toe with a club which essentially cheated over an extended period.

No other manager walks in and touches what he did, which was winning every available trophy, with the resources Liverpool had. Yes, they spent but relative to a couple other clubs flexing their muscles, he didn't spend as much as them.
He didn’t go consistently toe to toe with them though, he did well to get near them 3 seasons out of 9
 
Chelsea took it to another level, and then City took it to yet another level - one that's almost impossible to match. The fact that Klopp matched it is nearly a football miracle.
Chelsea’s spending relative to the market was more excessive.
 
You didn't lose a league title to this City. You lost to Mancini's City.

Ferguson was swatted every time he came up against Pep. I have no doubt he'd have snatched a league or two if he was competing with Pep, but the history says he was tactically outmatched so the idea that he'd naturally best him is just pure supposition.

We lost a league title to this cheating oil club. That’s the point. If it’s going to be used as an excuse for Klopp then we missed out on a few more titles ourselves.

That’s not even mentioning Chelsea and Roman.
 
You are not being able to stop sides with superior players on a consistent basis, that is why clubs try to, you know, sign good players.

It is also funny that you say that, as he has a history of being stopped consistently by inferior sides in the CL. I cannot imagine the likes of Real from the mid 2010s, United from the late 00s for Bayern from the early 2010s going out in two-legged ties to the likes of Tottenham or Monaco. Or being eliminated by Lyon.
City have massively underachieved in Europe, true. It's a cup competition though, so a lot easier to knock them out over 90/180 mins than it is to finish above them over 38 games. Having said that, every chance they win it again this season. The standard throughout Europe is pretty poor.
 
He didn’t go consistently toe to toe with them though, he did well to get near them 3 seasons out of 9
There was a spell where he was able to, I've addressed the underperforming seasons in previous posts.
 
Yes, Klopp deserves a gold star for that, while, Pep can celebrate his trophies.

Then you'll get people who'll tell you Pep's achievement are hollow and maybe he'll even lose those trophies.

Which means that both Pep and Klopp aren't that great. Which is kind of weird.
 
Chelsea took it to another level, and then City took it to yet another level - one that's almost impossible to match. The fact that Klopp matched it is nearly a football miracle.

That Klopp matched it was very, very impressive but not a football miracle as he did it by running the players in the ground. Had he matched City without running the players in the ground and having bad seasons, now that would be a miracle indeed. It's not like he matched their consistency and trophies.
 
What is this revisionism? Klopp played the best football in the league the years he came 2nd and the year he came 1st. Liverpool were far more enjoyable to watch when he hit his prime gear than city were.

His style is more direct and has more risk than Pep, and that's by design. Pep is more of a possession based manager, by design. When it came to more enjoyable football, prime Klopp is certainly more entertaining.

Not sure how this is even slightly debatable in fairness.
 
What is this revisionism? Klopp played the best football in the league the years he came 2nd and the year he came 1st. Liverpool were far more enjoyable to watch when he hit his prime gear than city were.

His style is more direct and has more risk than Pep, and that's by design. Pep is more of a possession based manager, by design. When it came to more enjoyable football, prime Klopp is certainly more entertaining.
It is more entertaining to some because it is flawed. It has always been less controlled, which pleases the neutrals as it gives you that element of unpredictability. Pep doesn't coach flawed football.
 
That Klopp matched it was very, very impressive but not a football miracle as he did it by running the players in the ground. Had he matched City without running the players in the ground and having bad seasons, now that would be a miracle indeed. It's not like he matched their consistency and trophies.

If that's his worst offence, I'd say he's in a pretty brilliant place.

Like, is there a manager who wouldn't do that if it would give him a shot at the bigger trophies? No, but it wouldn't help most. I
 
There was a spell where he was able to, I've addressed the underperforming seasons in previous posts.
So he didn’t go consistently toe to toe with them like you said. He did it 3 times, in 9 seasons. The other times he was finishing below us while we’ve had a decade disaster
 
He took over a team in 9th man :lol: :lol:
That’s got nothing to do with what I was refuting though. You’ve got posters making out he’d have won every league if it wasn’t for peps city and he contended with then every year, which is pretty false

the team he took over was shit yeah, they also almost won the league the year before, he spent£900 mil too so that’s not a bad spend either
 
That’s got nothing to do with what I was refuting though. You’ve got posters making out he’d have won every league if it wasn’t for peps city and he contended with then every year, which is pretty false

the team he took over was shit yeah, they also almost won the league the year before, he spent£900 mil too so that’s not a bad spend either

He almost instantly had to sell their best players though, did Pep? So a shit team selling their best players and you think it’s fair to claim 3 from 9 as though he should have been doing anything in those first 3 seasons :lol: