1 - 3 PL titles to 1 PL title and 1 CL title. The CL title counts for more IMO, as that means that Klopp achieved everything he set out to do, which Mourinho did not. Strike rate in finals? What about even getting to the final in the first place FFS, unlike Mourinho who never got there with an English club?
2 - the feck, in what world would somebody trade away a CL win for more league wins? Champions league is the pinnacle of club football. When a manager takes on a big club, they go into it with the dream that they'll build a side that wins the league and the CL. Surely you agree with that? So actually achieving that means you reached a higher peak. What use it is talking about a treble when Mou never even won the double with an English club?
3 - and yet, they won the CL, so the if is literally stupid to consider. Why criticize Klopp for losing to real Madrid in a comparison to Mourinho who never made the final in the first place. Completely illogical.
4 - again. How is it better for a manager to never reach a CL final with an English club than having one actually win the CL once! Come on.
Yes he's a Liverpool manager but have some fecking perspective and take off the goggles. You can't surely believe that winning back to back titles is a bigger accomplishment than winning the league and CL?
Mourinho as a general football manager is ahead of Klopp. When it comes to just English football impact, Klopp has done more, as he won the CL and league with an english club, he achieved everything he set out to do when he took over, he built a side that became the best in the world. Mourinho didn't manage that.