Klopp to leave Liverpool at the end of the season

[crossy1686]

And how do we know Brandt wouldn't have succeeded in his system?
If he had more resources he would pick better players and not players that will fit the budget

How have Gakpo, Nunez, Gravenberch, Melo, Carvalho, Konate, Davis, Minamoto etc done?

As soon as Klopp was given complete autonomy in the transfer market their recruitment got worse year on year, to the point he's had to fight for a budget to sign people like Bellingham, and now he's burnt out due to constant fighting with the board to get players in the door to replace the players he bought that aren't good enough.

Klopp's a great coach, maybe the best in the league, but he can't transition a great team into another great team because he gets too much freedom in the recruitment process and ultimately makes his team worse. When you realise Fergie was capable of this every 5 years you see how much of a generational talent he was.

And to answer your question Julian Brandt is playing for Dortmund, another system based team, who is valued at €40m, and in the league last year got 10 goals and 9 assists, which seems to be his average in the German league, so half that at best in the PL. Safe to say, he's not the player Salah is and it would have been a very underwhelming signing. See Gakpo for what you could have expected from a player like Brandt.

 

[stefan92]

How have Gakpo, Nunez, Gravenberch, Melo, Carvalho, Konate, Davis, Minamoto etc done?

As soon as Klopp was given complete autonomy in the transfer market their recruitment got worse year on year, to the point he's had to fight for a budget to sign people like Bellingham, and now he's burnt out due to constant fighting with the board to get players in the door to replace the players he bought that aren't good enough.

Klopp's a great coach, maybe the best in the league, but he can't transition a great team into another great team because he gets too much freedom in the recruitment process and ultimately makes his team worse. When you realise Fergie was capable of this every 5 years you see how much of a generational talent he was.

And to answer your question Julian Brandt is playing for Dortmund, another system based team, who is valued at €40m, and in the league last year got 10 goals and 9 assists, which seems to be his average in the German league, so half that at best in the PL. Safe to say, he's not the player Salah is and it would have been a very underwhelming signing. See Gakpo for what you could have expected from a player like Brandt.

Stop calling Dortmund a "system based" team. Terzic is a terrible coach. The whole club lost it's way and is terribly managed. Every Dortmund player would look better under any competent manager (just look how improved Bellingham looks compared to last season in Dortmund).

 

[Klopper76]

How have Gakpo, Nunez, Gravenberch, Melo, Carvalho, Konate, Davis, Minamoto etc done?

As soon as Klopp was given complete autonomy in the transfer market their recruitment got worse year on year, to the point he's had to fight for a budget to sign people like Bellingham, and now he's burnt out due to constant fighting with the board to get players in the door to replace the players he bought that aren't good enough.

Klopp's a great coach, maybe the best in the league, but he can't transition a great team into another great team because he gets too much freedom in the recruitment process and ultimately makes his team worse. When you realise Fergie was capable of this every 5 years you see how much of a generational talent he was.

And to answer your question Julian Brandt is playing for Dortmund, another system based team, who is valued at €40m, and in the league last year got 10 goals and 9 assists, which seems to be his average in the German league, so half that at best in the PL. Safe to say, he's not the player Salah is and it would have been a very underwhelming signing. See Gakpo for what you could have expected from a player like Brandt.

Konate has been a fantastic signing for the most part.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I personally think it's a lot harder to have that kind of consistency in the last 10 years vs the 90s.

Of course you do

 

[Nevilles.Wear.Prada]

Of course you do

 

[RedC]

Of course you do

Do you not think the league has gotten more difficult with advanced in fitness, playing styles, and technology? Nevermind the emergence of other consistent top teams.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Do you not think the league has gotten more difficult with advanced in fitness, playing styles, and technology? Nevermind the emergence of other consistent top teams.

Why would advancements in fitness and technology, available for all, make consistency harder? Back then Sir Alex’s United managed to be top class consistently. Now it’s Pep’s 115 charges fraud FC.

 

[RobinLFC]

Klopp's a great coach, maybe the best in the league, but he can't transition a great team into another great team

I don't know how anyone can argue that with a straight face if you look at our team now vs the team that won the PL and CL.

Why would advancements in fitness and technology, available for all, make consistency harder? Back then Sir Alex’s United managed to be top class consistently. Now it’s Pep’s 115 charges fraud FC.

Because all professional teams have access to an unlimited amount of resources / sport sciences / game and video analysis / ... through internet, for starters - which wasn't available to all during SAF's early days. I'd say back then it was easier to dominate if you just had a manager that was so much better than everyone else, rather than nowadays where margins are much smaller.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

I don't know if I can buy the argument that consistency is harder now when you've seen teams like Bayern and Juventus win the title for 10 years on the trot in separate leagues during the 2010s-2020s.

Unless we're just limiting that argument to the Premier League itself. Even then, we've seen a side with resources(and their 115 charges) win the title in 5 out of 6 seasons.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I don't know how anyone can argue that with a straight face if you look at our team now vs the team that won the PL and CL.


Because all professional teams have access to an unlimited amount of resources / sport sciences / game and video analysis / ... through internet, for starters - which wasn't available to all during SAF's early days. I'd say back then it was easier to dominate if you just had a manager that was so much better than everyone else, rather than nowadays where margins are much smaller.

Ah so only we had access to all that back then. Killer.

 

[stefan92]

Ah so only we had access to all that back then. Killer.

You had SAF. Nobody else had him. That made a lot of difference

 

[RedC]

Why would advancements in fitness and technology, available for all, make consistency harder? Back then Sir Alex’s United managed to be top class consistently. Now it’s Pep’s 115 charges fraud FC.

The overall level of the league has been raised?

 

[RobinLFC]

Ah so only we had access to all that back then. Killer.

You really don't know how to read, do you?

No one had access to all those things, which is why, and I quote myself in the post you responded to, "it was easier to dominate if you just had a manager that was so much better than everyone else".

 

[RobinLFC]

You had SAF. Nobody else had him. That made a lot of difference

Okay so the post was in fact understandable, cheers for that.

 

[Alex99]

You really don't know how to read, do you?

No one had access to all those things, which is why, and I quote myself in the post you responded to, "it was easier to dominate if you just had a manager that was so much better than everyone else".

You do realise that if no one had access back then and everyone has access now, the manager is still the difference maker, right?

 

[RobinLFC]

You do realise that if no one had access back then and everyone has access now, the manager is still the difference maker, right?

No, because a big part of what a manager's job is, is now the same at every club because of the additional knowledge. E.g. you could have a selection that was way more fit and physically ready for games if you had more knowledge about that kind of stuff than other managers back in the days, whereas now this part of "training" is just standard practice and more or less the same for everyone. The additional gains are marginal. Lots of parallels with cycling for example where it's innovative teams like Jumbo which still hold an advantage over the field.

Tactics is where you make the difference as a mananager nowadays.

 

[Steve Bruce]

The overall level of the league has been raised?

I think there's more athletism in football now, but I'd argue with anyone that the football quality isn't where it was.

I think 10 years ago the quality was elite but it slipped since. I do think though in the next 5 years it will be up there again because I think there's a lot of 18/23 year old who aren't world class yet but they have emense potential to be.

So basically I think football is in transition at the moment and we'll see more depth in brilliant players in the next half decade.

I think this is a world wide thing not centered around the Premier league

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Ah so now we're making up stuff like "it's harder to be consistent nowadays" to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse. This place is a constant source of delight.

 

[dwd]

When do we think he's announcing the u-turn then? I'm going for FA Cup Final day

 

[amolbhatia50k]

The overall level of the league has been raised?

If the overall level has increased then everybody got better and it’s not harder to be consistent?

 

[Zlatan 7]

Ah so now we're making up stuff like "it's harder to be consistent nowadays" to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse. This place is a constant source of delight.

It’s pretty amazing to see

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You really don't know how to read, do you?

No one had access to all those things, which is why, and I quote myself in the post you responded to, "it was easier to dominate if you just had a manager that was so much better than everyone else".

You’re making no sense whatsoever. Liverpool finished outside the top 4 last season despite Klopp’s supposed greatness because everyone has access to new technology. Ma gawd.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

You had SAF. Nobody else had him. That made a lot of difference

Of course and we all know that Klopp is nowhere near him. But the argument that its so much harder for him due to the “technology in the modern game” is laughable.

 

[CoopersDream]

You can't go "other clubs would act differently" to suggest United may not have won the league in the seasons they finished runners up to City, but then ignore the other side of that coin with Liverpool (or indeed United) in that they may have acted differently. All we have to go on is that we finished second to City as many times as they did. I agree, their runners up seasons were more impressive, but if you're extrapolating that to mean Liverpool would have been champions, you have to do the same to United.

At this point, I think people are talking past each other a bit, but my point (and I think the point of others) isn't that Liverpool weren't impressive in 2018/19 and 2021/22, but that Klopp's legacy is upheld by a false narrative relating to his non-existent rivalry with Pep/City.

It's a big difference finishing 25 points ahead of every other team to finishing four points ahead though. You can absolutely say that Liverpool would have won those two titles if not for City, can't really do that for United in the same way. To see the difference between the clubs you can also look at the difference between Liverpool/United and the second best non-City team. Doing that you'd see that Liverpool have only been more than six points behind that team twice, whereas United have been 15 or more points behind that team five times (including this year).

 

[AshRK]

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

Probably yes but at United there is more pressure and probably he would have been scrutinized even more and who knows he would have quit.

 

[Alex99]

No, because a big part of what a manager's job is, is now the same at every club because of the additional knowledge. E.g. you could have a selection that was way more fit and physically ready for games if you had more knowledge about that kind of stuff than other managers back in the days, whereas now this part of "training" is just standard practice and more or less the same for everyone. The additional gains are marginal. Lots of parallels with cycling for example where it's innovative teams like Jumbo which still hold an advantage over the field.

Tactics is where you make the difference as a mananager nowadays.

It was seen as a big innovation when Fergie stopped our players getting pissed on a regular basis and when Wenger got Arsenal's eating pasta instead of fry ups.

You're really overstating the advantages these managers had other than simply being better managers than their contemporaries. They didn't have some secret knowledge or access to otherwise hidden technologies and training methods.

This is also a particularly daft argument when it's in the context of Klopp dropping off from 97 and 99 point seasons to finish third behind a team with 74 points, and dropping off from a 92 point season to finish fifth on 67 points.

This, in an era that's seen United, Chelsea and Spurs change their managers with the changing of the seasons, and Arsenal spending most of it not even bothering with the top four.

As I said, the environment has arguably been as favourable as it could have possibly been for the Premier League to have an established top two, but Klopp not only finished third behind Ole Gunnar Solskjaer (needing a late charge to overtake Brendan Rodgers and a Chelsea team that still had Frank Lampard in charge until late January), but finished fifth just last season.

 

[Alex99]

Ah so now we're making up stuff like "it's harder to be consistent nowadays" to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse. This place is a constant source of delight.

Just a constant moving of goalposts to excuse objectively disappointing third and fifth place finishes.

 

[RedC]

If the overall level has increased then everybody got better and it’s not harder to be consistent?

No, the 'worse' teams have gotten better, the 90s was a completely different game, people were out on the piss after matches and the level of coaching was nothing like it is today. It was definitely easier to be consistent if you were a top team with an amazing manager, doing the right things off the pitch.

 

[DJ_21]

Be glad to see the back of him. His whinging and ridiculous excuses are getting boring

 

[RobinLFC]

It was seen as a big innovation when Fergie stopped our players getting pissed on a regular basis and when Wenger got Arsenal's eating pasta instead of fry ups.

You're really overstating the advantages these managers had other than simply being better managers than their contemporaries. They didn't have some secret knowledge or access to otherwise hidden technologies and training methods.

That is exactly what I am saying. If you were a great manager back then, you had the advantage. That was literally it.

It is harder to stand out these days than it was back then because the margins are much smaller. And I'm just gonna ignore the rest of the post because I wasn't even talking about Klopp anymore, it was just a point in general regarding managers.

 

[RobinLFC]

Ah so now we're making up stuff like "it's harder to be consistent nowadays" to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse. This place is a constant source of delight.

I didn't say that at all if you were aiming that at me.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

No, the 'worse' teams have gotten better, the 90s was a completely different game, people were out on the piss after matches and the level of coaching was nothing like it is today. It was definitely easier to be consistent if you were a top team with an amazing manager, doing the right things off the pitch.

So the worse teams have gotten better and the better teams have not? As that’s the only way it gets harder. Disappointing of the top teams for failing to keep up with the rest of the league. Explains 1 league title in 8 seasons for Kloppo.

 

[Zlatan 7]

It's a big difference finishing 25 points ahead of every other team to finishing four points ahead though. You can absolutely say that Liverpool would have won those two titles if not for City, can't really do that for United in the same way. To see the difference between the clubs you can also look at the difference between Liverpool/United and the second best non-City team. Doing that you'd see that Liverpool have only been more than six points behind that team twice, whereas United have been 15 or more points behind that team five times (including this year).

How many points were lei eroiol behind them true years they didn’t finish second

 

[stefan92]

So the worse teams have gotten better and the better teams have not? As that’s the only way it gets harder. Disappointing of the top teams for failing to keep up with the rest of the league. Explains 1 league title in 8 seasons for Kloppo.

In a way...

If you are the only one who does something right (like stopping the drinking culture), you have a clear advantage over other teams.

Such things are now done right by every professional team and don't work anymore as an advantage for anyone. The areas a manager can really influence and make a difference in have become fewer.

 

[Steve Bruce]

So the worse teams have gotten better and the better teams have not? As that’s the only way it gets harder. Disappointing of the top teams for failing to keep up with the rest of the league. Explains 1 league title in 8 seasons for Kloppo.

I'd argue in the past even before the Premier league it was harder to be consistent. The point totals point to that for a start.

1) pitches are perfect today, this allows the ball to move across the pitch much better than it used to.

2) you have many more players on the bench in which 5 can come onto the pitch. This allows for half the outfield to be replaced and can keep energy levels up for 90 minutes. This also favours the top sides as they would have 5/6/7 players that would slot into the majority of other teams first team

3) sports/medical science has come along leaps and bounds, players fitness can be analysed live and indicate when to take the player off before risking injury for example

4) football was more about expressing yourself and taking the risky pass. Now it's all about system and that also means more consistency.

5) analytics is massive now especially with system based teams. It's much easier to lesson risks of new signings because of this.

These are just off the top of my head. Obviously there needs to be the right people leading it and supporting it to work.

 

[Alex99]

That is exactly what I am saying. If you were a great manager back then, you had the advantage. That was literally it.

It is harder to stand out these days than it was back then because the margins are much smaller. And I'm just gonna ignore the rest of the post because I wasn't even talking about Klopp anymore, it was just a point in general regarding managers.

But it's an argument that doesn't make any sense (and one that definitely came across as them having access to things that other clubs didn't).

Access to technologies and knowledge has increased across the board, but wealth has also concentrated at the top. The best squads cost more and run far deeper than those lower down the table.

It's also a bizarre line of argument when the content is precisely Klopp failing to stay ahead of Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Eddie Howe.

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

It was seen as a big innovation when Fergie stopped our players getting pissed on a regular basis and when Wenger got Arsenal's eating pasta instead of fry ups.

You're really overstating the advantages these managers had other than simply being better managers than their contemporaries. They didn't have some secret knowledge or access to otherwise hidden technologies and training methods.

This is also a particularly daft argument when it's in the context of Klopp dropping off from 97 and 99 point seasons to finish third behind a team with 74 points, and dropping off from a 92 point season to finish fifth on 67 points.

This, in an era that's seen United, Chelsea and Spurs change their managers with the changing of the seasons, and Arsenal spending most of it not even bothering with the top four.

As I said, the environment has arguably been as favourable as it could have possibly been for the Premier League to have an established top two, but Klopp not only finished third behind Ole Gunnar Solskjaer (needing a late charge to overtake Brendan Rodgers and a Chelsea team that still had Frank Lampard in charge until late January), but finished fifth just last season.

Agreed. Klopp is a very good coach but his legacy is massively overstated and he's in the bracket below the best EPL managers ever like Mourinho, Wenger, Ferguson, Guardiola, etc.

 

[Alex99]

No, the 'worse' teams have gotten better, the 90s was a completely different game, people were out on the piss after matches and the level of coaching was nothing like it is today. It was definitely easier to be consistent if you were a top team with an amazing manager, doing the right things off the pitch.

The worse teams have gotten better?

From 1995/96 when the league changed to 20 teams to Fergie's retirement in 2012/13, 12 relegated teams finished on below 30 points and three of those finished on below 20 points. That's 18 seasons.

From 2015/16 when Klopp arrives, 12 relegated teams have finished on below 30 points, and two of those on below 20 points. Not including this campaign, that's 8 seasons. We're on course to add another two or three to that this season.

The worse teams are far less competitive than they used to be. We've gone from having one stand out poor team every other year to having one or two every single season.

 

[RuudTom83]

The debate about the football standard now compared to 5-10 years ago is always an interesting one.

As a simplified approach I’d just put the current team against themselves from a different era/year so see if the stabdard

For example the 08 and 99 United teams would smash any United team from the last 10 or so years.

Henry’s Arsenal would beat the current Arsenal. Chelsea goes without saying.

Spurs are probably the same but Bale might swing it in his favour.

I think Suarez/Gerrard Liverpool would give the current Liverpool team a game, especially if they were having one of their off years.

The only team currently you would easily say is better is City.

So personally I’m not a fan of the football today is the best it’s ever been.

 

[Loon]

Ah so now we're making up stuff like "it's harder to be consistent nowadays" to blow smoke up Liverpool's arse. This place is a constant source of delight.

Well, if we’re going down that road, let’s wipe out Liverpool’s dominance in the 1980’s and their European Cup wins.

In fact, let’s get rid of the prevailing “football only started with the PL” bullshit which riddles this site.

Football only started when Klopp rocked up in England. Better yet, it only started after he had his teeth whitened.