Klopp to leave Liverpool at the end of the season

[Amir]

In the seasons City and Liverpool were getting 90+ points the standard of the league was one of tbe poorest its been with the other members of the so called big 6 clubs (Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, and Man Utd) all struggling while other teams like Newcastle, Leeds, and Villa who in the Sir Alex and Wenger years had been competitive were either down the bottom battling relegation or were in the lower tiers.

The quality of the league isn't determined just by how the big names are doing. Also, the likes of Chelsea (pre Abramovich) and especially Spurs weren't always that good during the PL years. Leeds, Newcastle and Villa might have been gone at times, but they've hardly been regularly good during the PL era, and others took their place.

Do you think the PL was generally stronger in the 90s, for instance?

 

[Zlatan 7]

The bloke interviewing him is really helping him by not having a clue what he’s talking about and backtracking a lot.

Mills also never said Klopp “isn’t any good” - just that he’s not in Guardiola’s class.

I disagree with both in a way. Considering what Klopp has been up against, I’d say he’s done as well as he could realistically do at Liverpool. He also exceeded expectations at Dortmund. But he can’t be considered in the conversation of the best PL manager of all time

He only came second to Man City twice, he finished behind us just as many times so when people say city prevented him winning so much more, that’s kind of false

 

[tomaldinho1]

No. I strongly disagree. The standard of the league is far from poor and is better than ever. But, so have City and Liverpool been.

It’s been pretty average since when Leicester won it. I mean if that wasn’t a big enough clue in itself, you then proceeded to see points totals from Conte, Pep and Klopp which were either close to or above the points records.

 

[tomaldinho1]

He’s bang on

How?

 

[Amir]

It’s been pretty average since when Leicester won it. I mean if that wasn’t a big enough clue in itself, you then proceeded to see points totals from Conte, Pep and Klopp which were either close to or above the points records.

Maybe it's because the top teams have also become stronger?

The PL has been the strongest in Europe in recent years, and not just because of one or two top teams. If the PL has been average since 2016, I don't know what hope football has.

 

[Rojofiam]

It’s been pretty average since when Leicester won it. I mean if that wasn’t a big enough clue in itself, you then proceeded to see points totals from Conte, Pep and Klopp which were either close to or above the points records.

It's the exact opposite. The level of football is the highest it's ever been. Watch back some games from the 90s and 00s and see for yourself. It's miles behind today both tactically and in intensity.

 

[Zlatan 7]

How?

By saying what he said. He’s won one league in however many years and finished behind us more times than he finished behind city. He’s done well for Liverpool but that’s it

 

[tomaldinho1]

Maybe it's because the top teams have also become stronger?

The PL has been the strongest in Europe in recent years, and not just because of one or two top teams. If the PL has been average since 2016, I don't know what hope football has.

A league can have the best team(s) and also be uncompetitive? That’s not exactly a crazy idea.

 

[tomaldinho1]

It's the exact opposite. The level of football is the highest it's ever been. Watch back some games from the 90s and 00s and see for yourself. It's miles behind today both tactically and in intensity.

But that’s like me saying look at Pele, Best, Charlton etc. They’re gash players compared to today…everything is relative to its time.

Football as a sport will continue advancing as long as money pours into it but the issue is the money isn’t evenly distributed and the wealth gap is vast.

 

[tomaldinho1]

By saying what he said. He’s won one league in however many years and finished behind us more times than he finished behind city. He’s done well for Liverpool but that’s it

His logic is basically what the bots in the Ronaldo Messi thread do. He scored x amount, but he scored y!

I do think the narrative Klopp took an average team to the top is false. They were a good team and obviously ‘slipped’ on their race to win the league. But the fact is they hadn’t won it and he really built that entire team with their best players and developed a lot of players you wouldn’t think of as being as good as he made them. Then he won the big 2 trophies. Contrast that to Pep who walked into a team who’d won multiple titles recently, had KBD, Silva, Kompany, Fernandinho etc. already there and have just bought anyone they wanted and it’s clear there is some context needed when discussing his achievements.

He’s up there. I probably wouldn’t put him above Wenger but he’s top 5 all time PL manager I’d say.

 

[Rojofiam]

But that’s like me saying look at Pele, Best, Charlton etc. They’re gash players compared to today…everything is relative to its time.

Football as a sport will continue advancing as long as money pours into it but the issue is the money isn’t evenly distributed and the wealth gap is vast.

So you're saying there's a bigger gap between top title challengers and the rest of the teams, due to the high points totals of the last 7-8 years?

 

[GledTheRed]

Can't wait till the cnut fecks off, hate his guts and his cnuty team of arrogant dickheads.

 

[tomaldinho1]

So you're saying there's a bigger gap between top title challengers and the rest of the teams, due to the high points totals of the last 7-8 years?

Not solely points totals but that is an indicator. My point (I don’t know if it was you originally who asked me) was the league was more competitive and teams were playing in a more cautious manner at the time. Now everyone plays out and presses and there’s so much space so the big teams can thrive on that.

 

[RedRocket9908]

The quality of the league isn't determined just by how the big names are doing. Also, the likes of Chelsea (pre Abramovich) and especially Spurs weren't always that good during the PL years. Leeds, Newcastle and Villa might have been gone at times, but they've hardly been regularly good during the PL era, and others took their place.

Do you think the PL was generally stronger in the 90s, for instance?

The quality of the League is determined by how competitive it is and it was far more competitive in the 90's and 00's when there were multiple teams at the top all taking points off each other than it was when Liverpool and City were getting 90+ points with hardly anyone points off them.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I don't believe he'll actually leave at the end of the season.

 

[alexthelion]

Really does cement how good SAF was that despite all those games (over twice as long as Pep and Klopp) he STILL has the 2nd best ppg. Madness!

Especially considering the start he had.

 

[Rojofiam]

Not solely points totals but that is an indicator. My point (I don’t know if it was you originally who asked me) was the league was more competitive and teams were playing in a more cautious manner at the time. Now everyone plays out and presses and there’s so much space so the big teams can thrive on that.

Not sure I agree about it being more competitive 15-20+ years ago. There's been seasons where Liverpool and City went on incredible streaks and almost didn't drop points for 20 or 30 games in a row, which allowed them to reach or get close to the 100 point mark. However, still anyone can beat anyone from the 20 teams, and a lot of mid-table sides and relegation candidates are actually pretty decent, well-drilled tactically, and every team in the league has a few players at least that could be of use to a top 6 side as well. I guess that's what you mean by teams being less cautious these days, but I feel like it's the rather the result of the tactical evolution of the last 10+ years. The general quality of managers has also gradually increased in the last 5-6 years, starting with the arrival of Klopp and Guardiola in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

 

[Amir]

A league can have the best team(s) and also be uncompetitive? That’s not exactly a crazy idea.

The question is if it's uncompetitive because a lot of the teams are not good, or because while the league is very strong, one or two teams are historically strong.

I think it's the latter.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Not sure I agree about it being more competitive 15-20+ years ago. There's been seasons where Liverpool and City went on incredible streaks and almost didn't drop points for 20 or 30 games in a row, which allowed them to reach or get close to the 100 point mark. However, still anyone can beat anyone from the 20 teams, and a lot of mid-table sides and relegation candidates are actually pretty decent, well-drilled tactically, and every team in the league has a few players at least that could be of use to a top 6 side as well. I guess that's what you mean by teams being less cautious these days, but I feel like it's the rather the result of the tactical evolution of the last 10+ years. The general quality of managers has also gradually increased in the last 5-6 years, starting with the arrival of Klopp and Guardiola in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

There will have been periods of the league being less and more competitive but the wealth gap has never been bigger. You seem to not be grasping the idea of relative strength - I’m sure teams are more tactically knowledgeable now, coaching standards have really improved although I’d say it started long before Pep and Klopp and the big pioneer there being Wenger and then Mou after him.

 

[Amir]

The quality of the League is determined by how competitive it is and it was far more competitive in the 90's and 00's when there were multiple teams at the top all taking points off each other than it was when Liverpool and City were getting 90+ points with hardly anyone points off them.

The quality of the league is partly determined by the depth of it. If it has a lot of decent, good and very teams, and one or two who are extremely special and therefore are way ahead of the rest, then it might not be competitive - but it is quality.

In the 90s, for instance, the league was definitely competitive - but the qualify of depth was certainly not there. I'm looking at our Treble winning year, for instance. Arsenal were great, Chelsea were quite good, Leeds were up and coming, Aston Villa had a good start to the season and faltered... The rest were completely forgettable.

I simply think the likes of City and Liverpool (and Chelsea for the Conte year) raised the bar very high. Higher than any team previously.

 

[Greyfog]

If he had the resources of the Manchester clubs and Chelsea. He would have won a lot more.

 

[Kingofwinners]

The question is if it's uncompetitive because a lot of the teams are not good, or because while the league is very strong, one or two teams are historically strong.

I think it's the latter.

The game was different then. You could be much more physical and tactics were more basic across the board. Pitches were also shite most of the season. All these things levelled out the advantage between high skill players and strong athlete. it wasn’t quite the Wimbledon days but there was much more of a sense that any team could beat anyone else on a given day.

Today the advantages the high skill (expensive) players have is way higher, making many games less competitive. I’m not a stats expert but 4:0 and 5:0 used to be a fairly rare score, seems like we have them every second week now and that the big teams can deliver them on demand against weaker opponent.

 

[tomaldinho1]

The question is if it's uncompetitive because a lot of the teams are not good, or because while the league is very strong, one or two teams are historically strong.

I think it's the latter.

I’m not sure because it ignores Conte’s Chelsea and how Leicester won the league. I don’t think anyone would dispute Pool and City (pending the result of the 115 charges) were/are great teams but it seems extremely coincidental. You can simply go work it out, I might be wrong, but if you calculate the standard deviation of points in each PL season it would show how competitive each season has been.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Especially considering the start he had.

He had an amazing start in the PL, he won the fecking thing

 

[thisisnottaken1]

Really does cement how good SAF was that despite all those games (over twice as long as Pep and Klopp) he STILL has the 2nd best ppg. Madness!

Just goes to show how he was the GOAT.

 

[crossy1686]

If he had the resources of the Manchester clubs and Chelsea. He would have won a lot more.

He’d of wasted it. Look at the players he’s bought when he was allowed full control the last few years. As soon as Edward’s left and he began to have more of a say in players their recruitment got shitter. He didn’t even want Salah, he wanted Brandt instead. I don’t think his eye for talent is as good as it’s made out to be.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

He’d of wasted it. Look at the players he’s bought when he was allowed full control the last few years. As soon as Edward’s left and he began to have more of a say in players their recruitment got shitter. He didn’t even want Salah, he wanted Brandt instead. I don’t think his eye for talent is as good as it’s made out to be.

Both Klopp and Guardiola, despite being excellent coaches, have benefitted greatly from being at two of the best run clubs around. As you say, imagine Liverpool without Salah or with some of Klopp’s other preferred targets. It really helps to have a club that provides that support and expertise. The way City do business in the market is also excellent. I mean aside from being a bunch of cheating wanker a who deserve every trophy to be stripped off them, of course.

 

[Slevs]

I don't believe he'll actually leave at the end of the season.

Same.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

He only came second to Man City twice, he finished behind us just as many times so when people say city prevented him winning so much more, that’s kind of false

How did Liverpool perform the 2-3 years before Klopp came in though? After his slow start, he’s definitely got the best out of that club imo. I also think there will be a massive drop off for the next couple of seasons, if not more. Which will highlight his impact even more

 

[Sassy Colin]

How did Liverpool perform the 2-3 years before Klopp came in though? After his slow start, he’s definitely got the best out of that club imo. I also think there will be a massive drop off for the next couple of seasons, if not more. Which will highlight his impact even more

Rogers nearly won the league, if it hadn't been for Slippy G, they might have.

 

[RobinLFC]

Not solely points totals but that is an indicator. My point (I don’t know if it was you originally who asked me) was the league was more competitive and teams were playing in a more cautious manner at the time. Now everyone plays out and presses and there’s so much space so the big teams can thrive on that.

You must be joking. That is not at all how the smaller teams approach games against the big six.

Both Klopp and Guardiola, despite being excellent coaches, have benefitted greatly from being at two of the best run clubs around. As you say, imagine Liverpool without Salah or with some of Klopp’s other preferred targets. It really helps to have a club that provides that support and expertise. The way City do business in the market is also excellent. I mean aside from being a bunch of cheating wanker a who deserve every trophy to be stripped off them, of course.

This entire site would've laughed their tits off had you said that about Liverpool pre-Klopp. So either he got incredibly lucky that his appointment coincided with us turning it around completely off the field, or you'd at least have to credit him with some of that turnaround. I know which one is more likely.

We were not a well-run club at all when Klopp arrived. We were taken over twice by new owners in the last 8 years, had crippling financial problems, bought very poorly, we were basically a laughing stock (and definitely were on here, most of the times rightfully so, since it was at that time I signed up to defend Liverpool a bit). So it's just lazy to attribute (at least part of) Klopp's success to "he is at a well-run club". We are not a particularly well-run club, let alone one of the best ones around - we are just another club who's lucky to have one of the best manager around. FSG hit the jackpot with his appointment and I am sure that he himself has been involved in identifying a successor which is why Alonso is so heavily mentioned. Even if it looks like we are doing all the right thing right now and putting pieces in place to make sure we don't fall off a cliff like you guys did post-SAF, it'll mean nothing if the next manager isn't close to Klopp's quality (which is barely enough to win the PL, as has been shown during his tenure).

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Rogers nearly won the league, if it hadn't been for Slippy G, they might have.

That was also before city's cheating really kicked in too though wasn't it? Maybe even before Guardiola came?

I'm not saying you're suggesting this, or the previous guy I responded to, but I can't accept that Klopp hasn't done a very good job there. I think he's been exceptional. I wish United had got him in 2014. (Although I'd have rather got Guardiola)

 

[RedC]

What exactly are people trying to argue here, that Klopp hasn't been one of the best managers ever in the league? It takes some level of bitterness or just idiocy to try and paint him as anything but that.

He lost the league on multiple occasions to complete cheats, he built the most entertaining team in the league, on less money than numerous others, and won the CL.

 

[RobinLFC]

That was also before city's cheating really kicked in too though wasn't it? Maybe even before Guardiola came?

Yeah Guardiola even came after Klopp, but City's cheating started around ~2009 I believe. Think their regular team that season was something like this:

Hart
Zabaleta Kompany Demichelis Kolarov
Fernandinho
Toure Silva
Milner Aguera Nasri
​

With the likes of Dzeko, Barry, Navas, Lescott, Clichy, ... all on the bench. Not quite the powerhouse they became under Pep but already a very decent side with title-winning experience. Especially Fernandinho, Silva and Toure were amongst the best midfielders in the world back then.

 

[Alpha 1]

Really does cement how good SAF was that despite all those games (over twice as long as Pep and Klopp) he STILL has the 2nd best ppg. Madness!

Going to state some obvious facts.
Ferguson is the greatest ever manager without question. His biggest legacy is his ability to break and build teams that won titles, overcoming unique challenges in the process.

1. The first challenge was winning the first title in 26 years.

2. Winning with the kids

3. Overcoming the challenge of Wenger's Arsenal. Wenger was a great manager in his own right and had built a very strong team full of pace, power and finesse.

4. Overcoming the challenge posed by Mourinho's Chelsea team constructed using Abramovich's billions. This was the second biggest achievement afterfi title. That Chelsea team in many ways was like City today with strength and depth that was unparalleled and a manager widelyconsideredto be amongst the very best. I remember when we went 3 seasons without a title and thinking if we'd ever win it again with the enormous challenge infront of us. But we did and managed to sustain our success.

5. Overcoming the challenge posed by the noisy neighbours after being bankrolled by Abu Dhabi petro dollars. By then they had a very strong team and had already started cheating.

I'm sure if he was still in the dug out today, we'd be challenging for the title every season even with these same players and City would definitely not have won all that they have done.

 

[Licha-Vidic]

What exactly are people trying to argue here, that Klopp hasn't been one of the best managers ever in the league? It takes some level of bitterness or just idiocy to try and paint him as anything but that.

He lost the league on multiple occasions to complete cheats, he built the most entertaining team in the league, on less money than numerous others, and won the CL.

People will call you bitter, Liverpool fan in incognito etc

Remove the combination of Pep and City in the last few years Klopp would have had 3 more titles for sure. The combination of Pep and City has been a cancer to the league in the last few years.

Even us we would have added 1 or 2 more titles were it not for Pep.
Liverpool will see what it means to be in a wilderness, as they know since before Klopp arrived there. ETH can compete with Arteta year in year out.
We need Klopp and Pep to leave for the playground to be fair.

 

[tomaldinho1]

You must be joking. That is not at all how the smaller teams approach games against the big six.

I've actually watched a fair few of your games this season and teams aren't sitting in against you compared to how the PL was 10+ years ago, mainly because of the influence your manager specifically has had on these teams who don't need to spend silly money to create an effective pressing system and make it difficult for bigger teams. There's a few Hennes graduates who have left a huge imprint on the league across teams at both ends of the table but Klopp is the poster boy.

Football is like an arms race, if a new tactic comes in it can have short term success, like Conte's 5 at the back, but teams adapt. Parking the bus against big teams is far less effective now because fitness levels are so high, teams can attack you for 90mins, press you and generally have way more ways of breaking through low blocks. Obviously I'm not saying everyone goes Bielsa's Leeds all the time, but the general trend is toward more possession, more building from the back and you can see it in the league table, teams are getting goals albeit they are still losing versus the big teams because they will commit men forward countering and they will take more risks.

 

[Zlatan 7]

How did Liverpool perform the 2-3 years before Klopp came in though? After his slow start, he’s definitely got the best out of that club imo. I also think there will be a massive drop off for the next couple of seasons, if not more. Which will highlight his impact even more

I agree with this, I disagree that city stopped him dominating the league and he would have won so much more talk

 

[bosskeano]

Klopp is a bit of a cvnt full stop

 

[Alex99]

What exactly are people trying to argue here, that Klopp hasn't been one of the best managers ever in the league? It takes some level of bitterness or just idiocy to try and paint him as anything but that.

He lost the league on multiple occasions to complete cheats, he built the most entertaining team in the league, on less money than numerous others, and won the CL.

He's clearly among the best managers the league has seen, and is certainly among Liverpool's own list of great managers, but I think the general point is that it's a bit of a myth that he'd have cleaned up without City. He's finished second to them twice, which is the same number of times we've finished second to them in that timeframe.

His record is 8th, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 5th.

For context, Fergie didn't finish outside of the top two in the PL until 2001/02, and didn't finish outside of the top three at all. Wenger's record at Arsenal between 1996/97 (when he took over mid-season ,with them having finished 5th and 12th in the two years prior) and 2004/05 was 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd.

The situation with City has been a convenient mask for an obvious lack of consistency with Klopp. He followed up the title win by needing to claw his way back into a CL spot, after going on a run of 14 games and three months with just three league wins and eight defeats. Even then, it required Leicester to win just one of the final five, and Chelsea to lose two of their last three, and Alisson scoring a 96th minute winner against West Brom, for them to secure their spot in the top four. He followed a quadruple hunt with a season that saw them 6th and below for the entirety of the first half, and dropping as low as 10th in the second half, and ultimately culminated in them finishing 5th.